Oral
Answers to
Questions

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

The Secretary of State was asked—

Motor Neurone Disease Research Funding

Jason McCartney: If his Department will increase spending on research into motor neurone disease.

Karl Turner: If his Department will increase spending on research into motor neurone disease.

Kwasi Kwarteng: The pandemic has shown us just how important and world-leading the UK’s life sciences sector is, and our Government are committed to making it go from strength to strength.

Jason McCartney: As a fellow rugby league fan, Mr Speaker, you will know the brilliance of Rob Burrow on the pitch and now his inspiration off the pitch. Rob is in Parliament today with his friend Doddie Weir to raise awareness of motor neurone disease and of the campaign calling on the Government to invest £50 million in MND research over the next five years for a virtual MND research institute. Will the Secretary of State please commit to meeting the MND Association to discuss this funding proposal further?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing in this area. He will know that in the last fiscal year, UK Research and Innovation spent £15.9 million on MND research. In the previous Parliament, 2017 to 2019, we announced £20 million to support the work of medical research charities which have now been impacted by covid.

Karl Turner: It has been said already, but rugby league fanatics like you and I, Mr Speaker, have long been inspired by the brilliance of Rob Burrow on the field, but I think we have been blown away by his tireless determination off the pitch to campaign to raise awareness of motor neurone disease. Does the Secretary of State agree with Rob and Scotland’s rugby union star Doddie Weir, who are both watching us, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) said? We need to act now, Secretary of State—now—to increase research funding into this devastating, debilitating and life- limiting disease.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I pay tribute to the hon. Member, who raises an extremely important point. I do not know Rob, but I am very pleased that his tireless work has been raised today. As I said, in the last fiscal year UKRI spent £15.9 million on MND research. We have had a wider offer for medical research charities—we announced £204 million for Research England in the fiscal year 2020-21—but I am very happy to meet him and see what more we can do to pursue this important topic.

Douglas Ross: Lucy Lintott from Moray was Scotland’s youngest person to be diagnosed with MND, aged 19. Eight years on, she is living with fiancé Tommy Smith. They have an 18-month-old, LJ, and, on Hogmanay, they are expecting their second child, a little girl. It is believed that Lucy is the first person in the world to have had two pregnancies after diagnosis. Will the Secretary of State meet Lucy and other campaigners to see what we can do to support her family and so many others in Scotland and across the UK?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I thank my hon. Friend for raising in this House such an inspiring story. I would, of course, be delighted to meet Lucy and him to discuss how we can pursue further progress in this area.

Christine Jardine: As I am sure the Secretary of State will appreciate, there are very many of us in this House for whom this is a hugely important issue. He has already mentioned the research, but the key to the £50 million over five years is that it is not spread over other research—it is completely targeted on motor neurone disease. Will he take that to the Government and bear that in mind please?

Kwasi Kwarteng: Absolutely right. UKRI is responsible for the budget and I am in frequent conversations with UKRI. We have to work to see what we can do to focus, with laser-like attention, on this debilitating illness.

Lindsay Hoyle: Thank you, Secretary of State. May I just say that everybody in rugby league is aware that Rob Burrow is an inspirational person? He really is that great man and great character.

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.”

Innovation: Private Sector Investment

Ben Bradley: What steps his Department is taking to increase private sector investment in innovation.

George Freeman: It is very good to be back as the newly appointed Minister for Science, Research and Innovation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for his tireless work on levelling up and the importance of innovation in supporting left-behind communities. Science and innovation are not the same thing. We are committed to being both a science superpower and an innovation nation, and that is why I am looking hard at what we can do, through the business innovation forum, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, Innovate UK and UKRI, to drive levelling up.

Ben Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome him back to his new position—congratulations. There is an oven-ready package available in the east midlands, with key projects set to boost private investment in the region. The Government’s backing for those projects this autumn is vital. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are supportive of our plans for an east midlands freeport, our development corporation and the importance of Toton in the integrated rail plan? Does he agree that this is a huge opportunity to attract private investment into a region that traditionally is at the bottom of the table for attracting that kind of money?

George Freeman: In a word, yes. My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Freeports and regeneration corporations are vital to our innovation strategy. Not only are we determined that there will be funding for the golden triangle, but we want to harness science and regeneration to drive growth around the country.

Fire and Rehire

Ian Lavery: What steps he is taking to help ensure that businesses do not use fire and rehire practices.

Paul Scully: We have been clear that threats to fire and rehire as a tactic to pressure workers during negotiations are totally unacceptable. That is why we have asked the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to produce guidance to help employers to reach negotiated outcomes with their workforce. We continue to keep the issue under review.

Ian Lavery: While Members across the House were munching away this morning at the country’s favourite breakfast cereal, Weetabix, they will have been blissfully unaware that Post Holdings, which owns Weetabix, has turned its guns on its workforce with fire and rehire. Employees at Weetabix are set to lose £5,000 per annum, and of course if they refuse they will lose their jobs. That is quite simply not good enough. Minister after Minister, including the Prime Minister, has stood at the Dispatch Box saying how abhorrent fire and rehire is. Will the Minister please tell the House what he intends to do about fire and rehire? Can he confirm that the Government will support the Second Reading of the Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill—the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner)—on 22 October?

Paul Scully: The Government take fire and rehire very seriously. Obviously there are occasions when businesses need the flexibility to change workers’ terms and conditions to avoid mass redundancies and insolvency, but there have been examples of its being used as a bully boy tactic. I know that the Labour party understands that, because as recently as July, it made a load of its own employees redundant and hired workers on temporary contracts with worse terms and conditions to keep the party afloat—unless that was a case of one law for the Labour party and another for UK businesses.

Laura Farris: I think that every Member of this House shares concerns about the practice of fire and rehire, but does the Minister agree that taking a sledgehammer to the delicate ecosystem of redundancy laws contained in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is fraught with danger and that there are levers that we can deploy instead that would strongly disincentivise such conduct? Will he meet me again to discuss the issue?

Paul Scully: I always thank my hon. Friend for her interventions in the matter, because with her experience as an employment barrister she has seen it from both angles. The Government do not currently plan to legislate, but because of its obvious importance we are keeping the matter under review. I recognise the wealth of expertise on employment law and related matters in this House; I have met MPs on both sides of the issue and am glad to continue these conversations with my hon. Friend.

Mike Amesbury: We hear lots of talk of levelling up from Ministers at the Dispatch Box, do we not? Well, here is a genuine opportunity to improve terms and conditions for employees up and down the land, including at Weetabix, and legislate through the private Member’s Bill. Stop the reviews, get on with it and legislate!

Paul Scully: We introduced the national living wage. We have enabled workers to carry over more annual leave because of the pandemic. We have increased the reference period that employers use to calculate holiday pay, to improve seasonal workers’ wages. We are continuing to improve workers’ rights over this Parliament. We are indeed the workers’ party, so we will continue to make sure that we tackle fire and rehire when it is used as a bully boy tactic.

World Leadership in Science, Research and Innovation

Andrew Jones: What steps his Department is taking to establish the UK’s position as a world leader in science, research and innovation.

George Freeman: I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a distinguished Minister in the Treasury and the Department for Transport and a champion of innovation. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government are completely committed to unlocking this country’s global reach as a science superpower and an innovation nation. That is why we are committed to spending £14.9 billion this year on research and development, and to increasing the total R&D budget to £22 billion and 2.5% of GDP.

Andrew Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and congratulate him. It is good to see him back at the Dispatch Box.
One of the largest employers in my constituency is Labcorp, a business that is at the heart of new medicine development both in the UK and across Europe and has played a role in the life science industry response to covid. It is considering UK expansion over the next five years at a number of sites across the UK. Will my  hon. Friend meet me to discuss that opportunity, and also some of the obstacles that may get in the way of it, with a view to securing expansion in the UK as a whole but in Harrogate in particular?

George Freeman: I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend soon to discuss that. Labcorp is a major global corporation whose investment in the new clinical pharmacology site is vital. It is in such companies that we need to be investing to drive private investment in research and development.

Rachael Maskell: Time and again I have raised with the Government the opportunity to invest in BioYorkshire, which will create 4,000 jobs for my constituents, upskill 25,000 people, and deliver £5 billion in gross value added to the Government. Will the Minister meet me to discuss it? COP26 is just six weeks away, and not pursuing projects like this is holding back the improvements that we can make to our environment.

George Freeman: As I have said, I am wholly committed to ensuring that science innovation drives levelling up and regeneration, and I should be delighted to meet the hon. Lady. I shall be on my way to County Durham on Thursday, so perhaps I can meet her next week or the week after.

Automotive Battery Manufacturers

Alun Cairns: What recent progress he has made on the Government’s proposals to support automotive battery manufacturers.

Lee Rowley: The Government remain firmly committed to securing gigafactories in the UK, and have demonstrated that commitment through the automotive transformation fund. As many Members will know, the first site in Sunderland was announced in July, and will see an unprecedented 100,000 battery-electric cars produced annually by Nissan and Envision AESC from 2024.

Alun Cairns: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, and pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his team for facilitating investment in gigafactories in the UK. Britishvolt is making excellent progress in Blyth, but was originally intended to come to my constituency. These large-scale projects have both devolved and reserved functions. When similar projects arise, might a Minister be dedicated to lead them, looking after both the devolved and the reserved functions and working with the Welsh Government in securing that investment?

Lee Rowley: I am extremely grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question. I know that he is a huge champion of Wales, and that he has huge experience in this regard. I should be happy to meet him to discuss his suggestion. As he will know, the automotive transformation fund is a UK-wide programme, and we will welcome applications for support throughout the UK. I look forward to talking to my right hon. Friend about that.

Chi Onwurah: I welcome the Minister to his position.
The Prime Minister’s climate change spokeswoman recently announced that she would not be buying an electric car because of the lack of charging infrastructure and battery capacity. In 2018 the UK produced a quarter of Europe’s electric vehicles, but that is set to fall to just 4% by 2030. Motor manufacturers predict that tens of thousands of good jobs will be lost.
Will the Minister confirm that even if he meets his own targets, by 2025 the UK will have only 7% of the battery production capacity of Germany? Germans receive grants of up to €9,000 to buy an electric car, three times what he is offering. What will he do to deliver the battery capacity that is needed to secure British jobs, and make electric cars affordable? Does he understand what affordable means?

Lee Rowley: We absolutely understand what affordable means, and we are absolutely committed to building an industry that supports batteries in the United Kingdom, ensuring that the transition to electric vehicles will take place within a short period. I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady more about that if she wishes.

Neonatal Care: Statutory Leave and Pay

David Linden: What plans his Department has to bring forward legislative proposals on an entitlement to statutory leave and pay for parents of babies requiring neonatal care.

Paul Scully: The Government are committed to introducing statutory leave and pay for parents of babies requiring neonatal care, and we will do that as soon as parliamentary time allows.

David Linden: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but I am afraid it is not good enough. Every year 100,000 babies are born premature or sick, and parents like me then have to take time off work to be with their child in hospital where, perhaps, it is fighting for its life. When will the Government get a grip on the issue? This is something that they have committed themselves to doing, and parents of premature and sick babies across these islands are desperate for action. Do we have to wait for an employment Bill? Why are the Government taking so long?

Paul Scully: I appreciate the work that the hon. Gentleman and his all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies are doing in this area. The Government are committed to ensuring that all workers can participate and progress in the labour market and that we build back better as we recover from covid-19. We will bring forward the employment Bill when the time is right. In the meantime, we will continue to take the necessary action to support businesses and protect jobs.

Andy McDonald: Millions of workers are denied maternity pay and parental leave, as well as other basic rights and protections, because the Government allow only some workers to have full rights, and only after two years in the job. Is it not the case that  working people are paying the price for the Government’s broken promise to bring in an employment Bill? Does the Minister not agree that all workers should have full rights from day one on the job?

Paul Scully: As I say, we are expanding workers’ rights and delivering based on qualitative and quantitative evidence. That will be seen when the employment Bill comes through, when parliamentary time allows. What we cannot do, though, is work on a whim. Last week, the Labour party announced that it wanted a £10 minimum wage, yet this week it is reportedly recruiting stewards for its conference at £9.75 an hour. We say what we mean and we will deliver.

Net Zero Emissions by 2050

Robert Largan: What steps his Department is taking to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

Greg Hands: Ahead of COP26, we will publish a net zero strategy. This will set out our vision for transitioning to a net zero economy and outline our path to meet net zero by 2050. Ahead of this, we have already published important sector strategies and made major green investments in key technologies, including a £240 million net zero hydrogen fund and a £1 billion fund for carbon capture.

Robert Largan: I am delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role, although he will be much missed from his previous role in the Department for International Trade where he played a crucial role in building the Department from scratch since 2016. Reducing emissions in the heat sector is vital to decarbonising our economy, and the Government have set an ambitious target of installing 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government’s anticipated heat and building strategy will include a pathway for reaching that target, including measures to make heat pumps more affordable for working households?

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. As he has pointed out, the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution sets an ambition to grow the market to 600,000 heat pump installations per annum by 2028. The heat and building strategy, due soon, will set out the policies that will deliver this target in a fair and affordable way, including for his High Peak constituency.

Kerry McCarthy: Experts have concluded that to reach net zero by 2050, there should be no new oil and gas fields approved for development and no new coalmines or mine extensions from the end of this year. Does the Minister agree with that assessment by the experts, and if so, does he agree that the Cumbrian coalmine and the Cambo oilfield surely cannot go ahead?

Greg Hands: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Of course, we look carefully at what the Climate Change Committee has recommended at all times, and we are in the process of meeting last year’s recommendations very well. I can tell her that the climate checkpoint will apply to all future licensing rounds. Cambo is of course  already licensed, and projects that are already licensed are already accounted for in our projection of emissions from future oil and gas production. So those emissions are already accounted for in our plans.

David Evennett: I would like to welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position, and I wish him well. May I also welcome the Government’s new target to cut our carbon emissions by 78% by 2035? Does he agree that this ambitious world-leading target puts us on track to get to net zero by 2050 and shows how we are leading the world in building back greener?

Greg Hands: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Referring back to the Climate Change Committee progress report, I read an interesting comment in it at the weekend while I was learning into my new brief. It states:
“The rate of reductions since 2012…is comparable to that needed in the future.”
That is not a reason for complacency, but I would point out, as my right hon. Friend has done, that the UK has an enviable record in this space. We have grown the economy by 78% since 1990 and reduced our emissions by 44%, showing that the right way forward is to grow our economy while simultaneously reducing emissions.

Sammy Wilson: Household energy bills are set to increase by £400 a year as green costs escalate and energy-intensive industries are leaving the UK, with the loss of thousands of jobs. We are becoming increasingly reliant on hostile and unstable states, as we refuse to give licences to exploit our own oil, coal and gas in the United Kingdom. This week we found out that emergency electricity supplies have had to be bought in because the wind did not blow. All that is a result of the policy of aiming for zero CO2 emissions by 2050. Does the Minister not have even the tiniest doubt that these policies are economic madness?

Greg Hands: I always enjoy my engagements with the right hon. Gentleman on a number of topics, whether in relation to Northern Ireland or to these kinds of issues more broadly. First, on jobs leaving the UK, overall we have fantastic economic growth at the moment, 4.8% in the last quarter.
We have also done an incredible job of making sure that we have diverse sources of supply that do not leave us vulnerable to the actions of hostile states. Actually, 48% of our gas is taken from the UK continental shelf and an additional 30% comes from Norway. Norway is one of our greatest friends and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday, it is increasing its production.
On renewables, our ability to diversify shows the strength of the UK’s ability to generate energy and electricity that is both sustainable and diverse.

Andrew Murrison: In addressing the energy trilemma of cost, security and decarbonisation, what account is my right hon. Friend taking of the 10,000 MW, 4,500 km power link between Australia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations? Does he feel that there is any read across for what the UK might do to address the problems we will likely face, if not this winter, in the very near future?

Greg Hands: I take a keen interest in both Australia and ASEAN, having recently come from the Department for International Trade. There is a new Australia trade agreement and we have dialogue partner status at ASEAN. My right hon. Friend refers to an interesting project and, of course, the UK is always looking to make our energy supply more secure and to make our sources of energy more diverse. These are the sorts of things on which we are keeping a close eye as a potential model for the UK.

Jack Dromey: If the closure of the GKN plant in Erdington goes ahead, it will be a blow to the automotive industry’s transition to an electric future and a betrayal of the British national interest, with 519 workers sacked in an area of high deprivation and with production exported to Poland and France. I welcome the statement made by Ministers as early as April 2021 on their preparedness to contemplate investment in both skills and plant as part of keeping the factory open. As talks reach a critical stage, will the Minister confirm that the Government stand ready to continue to play an active role in seeking a resolution?

Greg Hands: I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s engagement as the constituency’s Member of Parliament. I do not buy into his idea that we are neglecting the national interest. This Government and this Department have the national interest very much at our core, as he will have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the rest of the ministerial team. We are engaging with GKN—my right hon. Friend has met GKN—and we will continue to engage with it at this difficult time.

Gareth Davies: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the issuance this morning of the UK’s first sovereign green gilt, which saw a record £90 billion of orders in the first hour? Does he agree that we should now seek to get more corporations to issue corporate green debt?

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend raises a good point. Having worked in futures markets, I think the first sovereign green gilt is a great step forward for this country. I am sure that Her Majesty’s Treasury will be working very closely with the market and will be advising issuers to make sure this important sector grows in the years ahead.

Anna McMorrin: Soaring gas prices have plummeted the UK into an energy crisis, with fears for vulnerable households and for the wave of energy firms folding. We have relied far too heavily on gas most recently, and it did not have to be this way; the Government could have foreseen it. We see that countries that have prioritised low-carbon energy are far more insulated from shocks such as this, and protect those vulnerable families as we head into winter, and meet climate objectives, which we know the Government are failing on. So will the Secretary of State commit to demanding that the Chancellor this autumn delivers a Budget that can ensure that we in the UK deliver an efficient, diverse, secure green energy sector, at speed?

Greg Hands: As a former Treasury Minister, I have to advise the hon. Lady to wait and see on the Budget. We have set out clear actions in relation to the wholesale  gas price problems, outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday, reassuring the public that the consumer always comes first. We have been absolutely clear that the energy price cap will remain—it protects 15 million households. On her accusation that we have done nothing for renewables, I can tell her that under this Government they are up sixfold and that since the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was the Energy Secretary in 2010 they have quadrupled as a share of our energy generation.

Jonathan Gullis: My right hon. Friend will be aware that ceramics is an energy-intensive industry, and companies such as Churchill China and Steelite are desperate to find a green solution that will enable them to fire the plates that we are lucky enough to dine on here in the House of Commons. So will he meet me and representatives of the ceramics industry to hear how we can help them to achieve net zero?

Greg Hands: We, of course, deliver relief schemes to reduce the cumulative impact of some energy and climate change policies on industrial electricity prices for eligible energy-intensive industries and sectors, such as steel, chemicals, cement, ceramics, paper and glass. I know the sector well from my previous role at the Department for International Trade, and of course I would be ready to meet my hon. Friend, the brilliant Stoke Conservative team of other MPs and the British Ceramic Confederation.

Stephen Flynn: Does the Minister intend to back the Acorn project as a track 1 cluster?

Greg Hands: We recognise that this project has good potential, but obviously we need to work through these kinds of projects in a proper and methodical way, to make sure that all of the questions people would expect the Government to look at—value for money, viability and so on—are properly met.

Stephen Flynn: We cannot understate the importance of the delivery of carbon capture and underground storage to the UK’s and Scotland’s journey to net zero. Let me be clear: the Acorn project should be in the vanguard of that process. I hear the warm words from the Minister, but warm words only go so far, particularly when we frame them within this Government’s record on sustainable projects in Scotland. If we look at the likes of offshore wind, we see that SSEN—Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks—has produced another report highlighting the fact that Scottish renewables projects continue to pay the highest grid charges in not only the UK, but the entirety of Europe. What is he going to do, as the new energy Minister, to end that renewables robbery?

Greg Hands: The hon. Gentleman’s talk of Scotland being short-changed on renewables is entirely wrong. Scotland is a massive part of our renewables offer, today and going forward. Secondly, this is a competitive process. Carbon capture, utilisation and storage is a key plank of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution. So of course we look at CCUS and the potential it offers, but this is a competitive process and it would not be right at this point to pass specific comment on the project.

Martin Vickers: Northern Lincolnshire and the wider Humber region are playing a major part in our reaching zero emissions targets in the next few years. The Minister will have been made aware of a number of projects that the Department has supported. Will he assure us that that support will continue? May I urge him to build into his schedule a visit to the region as quickly as possible?

Greg Hands: I look forward to a visit to Yorkshire and the Humber region as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend will know how Yorkshire has delivered incredibly for the UK as a whole, particularly in respect of offshore wind. The world’s largest operational offshore wind farm, Hornsea One, spans 400 sq km off the Yorkshire coast and generates enough power for 1 million UK homes.

Meg Hillier: The Minister has talked a lot about what is going to happen ahead of COP in respect of net zero, but will he look back at the green homes grant voucher scheme that was delivered in September last year? It was set up in 12 weeks, from announcement to delivery, and was axed six months later without having delivered the jobs or the green homes measures. What is the Minister’s Department doing to reflect on that? Is he thinking about longer-term planning to the benefit of both the industry and our net zero targets?

Greg Hands: The hon. Lady will know the course of that scheme through her important work as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. She will also know that we are committed to publishing a heat and buildings strategy in the run-up to COP, and she will just have to wait and see what is in it. It is incredibly important that we take strong action to make sure that our public and private building stock remains sustainable for the future and makes its contribution as we move forward to net zero and our chairing of COP in November.

David Duguid: I welcome my right hon. Friend and the other new BEIS Ministers to their places.
Perhaps uncharacteristically, I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) in backing the Acorn project, which is in my constituency of Banff and Buchan. The hon. Gentleman and other SNP Members often like to talk about the Scottish Government’s recent commitment to £500 million of support for a so-called just transition in the north-east of Scotland, but as far as I can tell no actual plan of action is connected to that funding to deliver the energy transition that we need. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister inform the House of what this Government actually plan to do to deliver net zero and how much investment has been and will be available through, for example, the North sea transition deal?

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend will know about the North sea transition agreement, which we announced earlier this year. I share his concern about the Scottish Government’s approach to all these things. It is still very early days for that coalition, but we are watching carefully. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that Scotland has benefited enormously from UK Government investment in renewables. On the contract for difference scheme, for  example, 20 of the 58 projects that have been awarded CfDs to date are in Scotland. That represents 34% of all CfD projects and 21% of total CfD capacity. My hon. Friend is right that the UK Government are delivering for Scotland.

Climate Change Committee: 2021 Annual Progress Report

Jeff Smith: What steps he is taking in response to the Climate Change Committee’s 2021 annual progress report to Parliament.

Greg Hands: The Government are carefully considering the Climate Change Committee’s progress report and will respond to it in full as part of our forthcoming net zero strategy ahead of COP26. That strategy, which will outline our path to meet net zero by 2050, will contain policies and proposals that will allow the Government to respond substantively to the report’s recommendations.

Jeff Smith: Well, it needs to, because the report was pretty damning. The Environmental Audit Committee recently made a number of recommendations to support community energy projects such as Greater Manchester Community Renewables in my constituency. Will the Minister emphasise the importance of community energy in the upcoming net zero strategy, as recommended specifically by the Committee, and put in place some practical measures to harness the potential of community energy, including support to enable groups to get investment for energy transition projects?

Greg Hands: Yes, of course we take community renewable initiatives very seriously indeed. We also take the Environmental Audit Committee very seriously indeed and I look forward to appearing before its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), in due course.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the CCC progress report was damning. For example, the report says:
“The UK has a leading record in reducing its own emissions”,
and:
“The UK has been a strong contributor to international climate finance”.
Recently, John Kerry himself, the President’s special envoy on climate, praised the UK approach.

Alan Whitehead: I too welcome the Minister to his new post, my opposite number in the Department, and hope that he will last a little longer in the post than his immediate predecessor.
The Climate Change Committee’s report to Parliament highlights how little progress has been made with the upgrading of insulation in buildings and points out that
“insulation rates remain well below the delivery achieved in 2012 before key policies were scrapped.”
Does the Minister accept that, had those insulation policies been pursued, energy customers would have been in a much better position to cope with the energy prices rises and the cost of living crisis that we have currently. Does the Minister now take responsibility for  the abject failure of the Government’s home insulation policies, and, most importantly, what will he now do about it?

Greg Hands: The hon. Gentleman has managed to pack a lot into that question. Let me try to answer it in three ways. First, when it comes to the heat and buildings strategy, he will just have to wait until we publish it. We are doing the right thing. Secondly, when it comes to energy price rises, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out at great length the action we are taking to protect customers, including vulnerable customers, with the rest of the support that the Government provide. Thirdly, when it comes to the Climate Change Committee, we have done very well on achieving, for example, last year’s recommendations. Actually we have achieved in full or in part 40 of the Committee’s 92 recommendations last year; 32 are already on their way. We are looking forward to responding as well to this year’s recommendations.

Philip Hollobone: The Kettering constituency generates enough wind power to power all local homes, but if we are to meet our net zero target by 2050, we need to develop more offshore wind power. Can the Energy Minister confirm that we are on track to increase the capacity of offshore wind from 30 GW to 40 GW by 2030?

Greg Hands: I always call my hon. Friend Mr Kettering, Mr Speaker, as he has been a councillor there for a long time and the Member of Parliament representing Kettering so diligently and astutely in this House. He is right: the UK currently has 10 GW of offshore wind capacity, which is around a third of the world’s total. We are looking to grow that to 40 GW by the year 2030.

Supply Chains

Mike Kane: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of (a) businesses and (b) trade unions on supply chain matters.

Paul Scully: Successful resolution of supply chain pressures will be a joint effort between stakeholders and the Government, and we will continue to engage with industry stakeholders and other Departments to find practical solutions to these challenges, which are not unique to the UK.

Mike Kane: Will the Minister join me in congratulating companies such as Cardon Energy and Maritime Transport in my constituency on keeping the country fed, fuelled and supplied? However, they tell me that there is a tsunami of HGV drivers reaching retirement. Unite the Union says that terms and conditions are not good enough and lengthening the working day will not improve that. NG Transport has offered to resettle six Afghanistan families with the requisite skills. Will the Minister not stand in the way of companies trying to innovate to plug the gaps while we tackle these structural problems?

Paul Scully: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Indeed, that is exactly why we are engaging with industry because the solutions will likely come predominantly from industry. We will continue to work with stakeholders on this so that we are able to innovate to tackle this incredibly intractable—at the moment—problem.

Seema Malhotra: For months, the Government have ignored warnings about supply chain issues from the Food and Drink Federation, UKHospitality and other businesses. August saw Nando’s temporarily close 50 stores. McDonald’s ran out of milkshakes and now the HGV shortage has been compounded by a CO2 crisis that the Government should have foreseen. With Iceland warning of food shortages in days, jobs at risk as businesses deal with this utter chaos, and looming costs for consumers who are now paying the price, will the Minister now tell the Chancellor that universal credit must not be cut? Is Professor Haszeldine not right to say today that, with only two to three days’ of methane stored rather than months’ of supply that other countries have, we should have been far better prepared?

Paul Scully: The hon. Lady started talking about supply chains and ended up talking about welfare, but let me tackle the supply chains issue. We are working closely with sector leaders to understand how we can encourage more people to work in these areas. Through our plan for jobs, we are also giving people the skills and qualifications that they need to quickly take up roles in key sectors. That is why we are inviting employers from a range of sectors, including farming and hospitality, into local jobcentres, as one of the most effective ways to promote vacancies is for employers to come out and market their opportunities directly to our work coaches and jobseekers

Hydrogen Production

Andy Carter: What steps his Department is taking to support hydrogen production in the UK.

Peter Gibson: What steps his Department is taking to support hydrogen production in the UK.

Lee Rowley: My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) asks a timely question; he may be aware that the United Kingdom recently published a hydrogen strategy outlining the Government’s comprehensive package to incentivise low-carbon hydrogen, and a broader plan to help the wider hydrogen economy to develop.

Andy Carter: The recent increase in wholesale energy prices strengthens the case for investing in hydrogen in the north-west of England. May I urge the Minister to come to Warrington and see the businesses that rely on intensive use of energy, and rapidly progress hydrogen and the HyNet scheme to produce carbon capture and storage in the UK, so that businesses such as Novelis Recycling and Solvay Interox are able to decarbonise rapidly?

Lee Rowley: My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for the north-west and his constituency of Warrington. The Secretary of State has said to me that one of the ministerial team would be happy to visit. I think the Secretary of State would be happy to do that—indeed, I think he has already visited. As my hon. Friend is aware, many of the decisions around this matter are currently under way, so I am not going to comment on them at this point. At the end of the process, we will have a low-carbon hydrogen economy to be proud of.

Peter Gibson: I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. Teesside already produces more than 50% of the UK’s commercially viable hydrogen. What assessment has he made of the benefits of the recently signed deal between BP, the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company and Masdar for the Tees valley? Does he support the phenomenal work being done locally by Ben Houchen to revolutionise our green energy sector?

Lee Rowley: The benefits will be huge. This work is another example of the fantastic Conservative Tees valley team led by my hon. Friend, supporting Darlington, and the Mayor, and it demonstrates what we can do in an area to level up and improve it for the long term.

Topical Questions

Clive Betts: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Yesterday I updated the House on the UK gas market. As I said in my statement, protecting consumers is our primary focus and is shaping our entire approach to the issue; they must come first.
I welcome the new members of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ministerial team. We had a great team before the reshuffle, but I am pleased that we have a good team with us today.
Over the summer, my Department has been abuzz with activity. We have introduced our innovation strategy and the hydrogen strategy, and outlined the new round for our contracts for difference scheme. It has been an excellent way to start and I look forward to continuing in that vein.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Harriett—I mean, Clive Betts.

Clive Betts: Thank you, Mr Speaker; for a minute, I thought you were going to miss me out!
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State launched the Government’s hydrogen strategy in my constituency at ITM Power, which is a leading green hydrogen producer. The German strategy is totally committed to green hydrogen alone, and of course the Germans have put substantially more funding in than we have into this country’s strategy. The Government have an aspiration to replace all fossil fuel boilers in this country by the 2030s. That ambition is important for reducing carbon emissions and for the security of our energy supplies. Does the Secretary of State agree that we can deliver on that ambition only with a much more significant commitment from the Government to develop and install green hydrogen boilers across the country?

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I make no apology for the fact that we have a twin-track approach in the hydrogen strategy. We have endorsed the production of green hydrogen, as he has described the German Government have done. We have also endorsed the production of blue hydrogen, because in the first instance, as he will understand, blue hydrogen is much cheaper than green hydrogen. In order to kickstart a hydrogen economy, we need a cheap source of decarbonised hydrogen. As such, blue hydrogen represents a transition to an economy that can be driven more by green hydrogen. The twin-track approach that we have outlined is certainly the best one.

Harriett Baldwin: I recently held an event for leading Worcestershire businesses on the journey to COP26 and net zero, and was impressed with their plans for investment. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that now that one in six cars purchased in this country are electric, the grid will be strengthened in rural areas to ensure the widespread adoption of this new technology?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I know, as a former Treasury Minister, that my hon. Friend is very focused on making the green transition as economically successful as possible. I and others in the Government are very focused on getting a proper electric vehicle charge roll-out, and I would be happy to speak to her to discuss the plans that we have adopted.

Ed Miliband: Families looking at soaring gas prices will be deeply worried about how they will pay their bills. One of the reasons UK households are particularly vulnerable is the Government’s failure on home insulation. Emissions from buildings are in fact higher today than in 2015. I am afraid to say that the Secretary of State’s record is abysmal, with the fiasco of the green homes grant, cuts to spending, a heat and buildings strategy originally promised for spring 2020 which is still not published, and no proper plan for retrofit. Will he admit that families this winter will be paying the price of the Government’s failure on home insulation?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I will not admit that at all. The right hon. Gentleman got the date wrong—it was to be published in quarter 1 of 2021. I was the Energy Minister who said that.

Clive Betts: Still late.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Yes, it is still late, and I want to publish it as quickly as possible. I can admit that candidly.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the green homes grant. I remind him that of the £3 billion that was sequestered—ringfenced—for the green homes grant, £1.5 billion was disbursed through Salix for public buildings, and that worked very well, while £500 million was disbursed by local authorities, and that was successful. The owner-occupier bit of it was a six-month programme—a short-term fiscal stimulus—that we have closed, and we are going to have a replacement imminently.

Ed Miliband: It is a complete fiasco. The Secretary of State actually cut the money that was supposed to be allocated to homeowners.
At least half a million families are going to be thrown into fuel poverty by the rise in energy prices. On top of that, along with national insurance rises, millions of families are facing a £1,000 a year cut in universal credit in just 10 days’ time. It is a Tory triple whammy made in Downing Street. Will the Secretary of State stand up for the millions of people who are deeply worried about their bills and tell the Prime Minister that he should cancel the universal credit cut?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I have a sense of déjà vu, as we addressed this issue directly yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman knows with his experience—I was going to  say in government but I mean and in opposition—that universal credit is a matter for the Chancellor, in discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Stephen Metcalfe: The space sector presents us with huge opportunities for the future prosperity of this country. What plans is my right hon. Friend developing with regard to the implementation, ownership, governance and funding of key elements of the national space strategy?

George Freeman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been a phenomenal champion of science and technology in space. I am delighted to say that the Government are very shortly to publish our national space strategy, into which we put a huge amount of work. In addition to the £1.4 billion that we spend on defence space activities in our innovation strategy, we are looking to make sure that we boost the wider science and technology applications of our £16.4 billion space sector.

Martyn Day: I was privileged to meet the international legend Doddie Weir before leading a debate on the petition he created on motor neurone disease in support of the targeted £50 million expenditure. I have certainly been convinced by his arguments, and we have heard cross-party support here today. Will the Secretary of State now commit to support this spending review bid?

Kwasi Kwarteng: Absolutely. In relation to this question, I pointed out that UKRI spent £15.9 million in the last fiscal year. The UKRI portion of our Department’s spend is being negotiated in the course of the spending review. I would be very happy to follow the guidance of the hon. Gentleman and make sure that we properly fund research into motor neurone disease.

Cherilyn Mackrory: Cornish Lithium, alongside Geothermal Engineering Ltd, will play a vital role in levelling up across Cornwall with the economic and job opportunities that they can provide. Will the Secretary of State, or a Minister, commit to visiting Cornish Lithium and GEL with me in the near future so that we can show him why their project very much deserves to have continued support from Government?

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend is absolutely tireless in promoting Truro and Falmouth. The project she mentions is very interesting. Last year, the new Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), made a successful visit to the site. Subject to diary commitments, I or the Secretary of State would be delighted to visit to see the latest progress, which is supported, in part, by our Getting Building fund.

Navendu Mishra: Stockport has a vibrant high street with excellent retailers and independent businesses, but in recent years, and particularly since the pandemic, many have had to shut up shop and, like lots of other high streets, we have lost beloved names such as BHS and Debenhams after they went into  administration and moved online. What steps is the Minister therefore taking to ensure that large online retailers do not undercut our high street stores?

Paul Scully: The hon. Gentleman will know that his area has received £14.5 million from the future high streets fund, which will bring local projects to life to help revitalise the high street. In the meantime, we will work with the sector and across Government to ensure that we get the balance right between online retail and bricks and mortar, which bring community spirit and social value to areas such as his constituency.

Jason McCartney: With gas prices soaring, as we have heard, will the Secretary of State please turbocharge plans for home insulation schemes not only to help bring down household bills but to make people’s homes greener?

Kwasi Kwarteng: That is absolutely right. I fully recognise, as my hon. Friend appreciates, that we have had huge success in decarbonising our power sector, but we need to accelerate the decarbonisation of our homes and buildings. As I pointed out to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), we have had some success in decarbonising public sector buildings—particularly through Salix—but we now need to focus on decarbonising our dwellings and other buildings.

Caroline Lucas: The Minister can play accounting games over the Cambo oilfield, arguing that it was licensed 20 years ago, but essentially its emissions will still drive climate change. New research shows that 60% of existing oil and gas reserves must stay in the ground if we are to stay within 1.5° C, and the International Energy Agency has said that there must be no new oil and gas development of any kind. With COP26 in just six weeks, with the Secretary of State trying to have international diplomacy, what message does he think is given out by the Government going ahead with more oil and gas?

Kwasi Kwarteng: With regard to Cambo, the hon. Member will appreciate that the decision has been scrutinised in the normal regulatory way. As an energy Minister I helped to negotiate a North sea transition deal, and key to that was the word transition. We need to transition our existing oil and gas sector to a decarbonised platform. What she and others like her want to see is a complete eclipse and shutting down of oil and gas, with 250,000 jobs vanishing overnight. That would be completely irresponsible.

Matt Vickers: Retail accounts for 5% of our economy but pays 25% of all business rates. Yesterday, the British Retail Consortium published a report showing that 83% of retailers feel it is likely they will have to close stores should the burden not be reduced. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we remain committed to a fundamental review of business rates, and when we might hear more about that?

Paul Scully: My hon. Friend is a real champion for his area, often talking about family businesses such as Strickland and Holt, which was established in 1854, and the contribution of such places to the economy. We expect the fundamental review of business rates to  conclude in the autumn. Businesses benefited from 100% business rates relief until 30 June 2021 and they continue to benefit from 66% business rates relief until 31 March 2022.

Gareth Thomas: Many people applying for jobs have to jump through a series of stages in the recruitment process before they find out what the salary would be were they to be successful. Is it not time that Ministers sat down with job application platforms such as LinkedIn and told them to require minimum salary levels in adverts?

Paul Scully: We speak to the recruitment sector on a number of occasions. I will happily sit down with the hon. Member to discuss the matter further.

Marco Longhi: The resilience of our energy sector and our journey towards net zero are key matters for the House. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that nuclear power forms an important part of our future energy mix?

Greg Hands: My hon. Friend is right. Nuclear power is a vital part of our future energy mix. We have committed to trying to achieve at least one more gigawatt power plant during this Parliament and we have set out plans for small and advanced nuclear reactors.

Wera Hobhouse: May I press the Secretary of State further on blue hydrogen? The source of blue hydrogen is natural gas, which is a fossil fuel, so how can a Government committed to net zero invest millions of pounds in new technologies based on fossil fuels? The Secretary of State has said several times that it is a “transition”, but since this is not a net zero technology, a transition to what?

Kwasi Kwarteng: We have spoken about this issue many times in this House, and the hon. Member will appreciate that carbon capture is a key part of our net zero strategy. I think that is widely accepted, particularly by the Climate Change Committee. With her knowledge of chemistry, she will also know that carbon capture works hand in hand with the production of blue hydrogen and that blue hydrogen is not particularly carbon intensive. The reason why countries such as Germany have not pursued a blue hydrogen strategy is that they do not have the physical infrastructure in the North sea to do it.

Sally-Ann Hart: Renewable energy depends on increasing our grid capacity, so what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to do that?

Greg Hands: There are robust processes in place for bringing forward new grid upgrades to meet demand. Smart electric vehicle charging and other smart technologies   of course reduce the need for new infrastructure, and the recent smart systems and flexibility plan sets out the actions the Government will take in an area in which I know my hon. Friend takes an ongoing interest.

Margaret Ferrier: UK steel producers face dramatically higher electricity costs than our European competitors. How can the sector attract the investment needed to decarbonise when it faces a £50 million a year barrier to investment?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I have discussed with the sector the ongoing issue of electricity prices or energy prices for the steel industry. That is why one of the first things I did as Secretary of State was to resuscitate the Steel Council. We are coming up with ideas to try to create a sustainable steel sector on a decarbonised basis.

Richard Graham: I welcome the Minister back re-energised to his place in the Department, and as today is Gloucestershire Day, can I ask him to look very closely at the bid made by Gloucestershire to support the development of a vital new technology—nuclear fusion?

George Freeman: On Gloucestershire Day, it is a great pleasure to take that question from my hon. Friend, and the answer is yes.

Jim Shannon: Renewables are very important everywhere across the United Kingdom, but one of the problems for renewables is getting access to the grid. The Electric Storage Company in Northern Ireland has told me that if that was improved, energy could be stored for access to the grid. Can the Secretary of State tell us what he could do to make that happen?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I would like to hear more from the hon. Gentleman about this, and I am very happy to meet him to talk about it.

David Davis: It seems that legislation is the only way that the hundreds of postmasters and postmistresses who have had their lives destroyed by the Horizon scandal will get sufficient compensation in a timely manner. Will the Department look at legislation to deliver this?

Paul Scully: I thank my right hon. Friend not only for his question, but for his meeting last week with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) as well as Tracy Felstead, Janet Skinner and Seema Misra, and we cannot help but be moved by the harrowing tales that the sub-postmasters tell after 20 years of suffering. Yes, we will look at everything that is required to make sure that we tackle the issue of how all sub-postmasters can seek justice and request compensation.

Data Breach: ARAP Applicants  in Afghanistan

John Healey: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the data breach exposing ARAP applicants in Afghanistan.

Ben Wallace: I understand the strength of feeling on this subject, and this question gives me the opportunity to set out where we are with the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and yesterday’s data breach. I would like to place it on record that I had offered a statement for when we return from conference recess, as the investigation I have ordered will be able to report fully by then, and I still expect to make those details available.
As you know, Mr Speaker, I have taken the obligation we have to the Afghan personnel who have supported us throughout extremely seriously. Despite this disappointing event, we should pay tribute to the armed forces for Operation Pitting and the that we have managed to evacuate 8,800 people and families eligible under the ARAP scheme since April, in addition to the 1,400 who had already been relocated prior to that date. However, worryingly for me, over the last few weeks lapses from the highest standards in the management of those people remaining in Afghanistan have been brought to my attention by both hon. Members of this House and others. For that reason Ministers raised concerns both last week and yesterday, and sought assurances that these problems would be rectified. Those assurances were given. However, it was brought to my attention at 2000 hours last night that there had been a significant data breach. To say I was angered by this is an understatement and I immediately directed an investigation to take place.
Initial findings show that an email was sent at 17.44 hours as part of the “weekly contact” we maintain with ARAP currently remaining in Afghanistan. This had been copied to all the 245 applicants, rather than blind copying them. The email was immediately recalled on identification of the breach and then a subsequent email was sent advising people to delete the email and change their addresses, which many of them have done.
So far, one individual has been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation and processes for data handling and correspondence processing have already been changed. I have directed that extensive steps are to be taken to quantify the potential increased risk to individuals in order to take further steps to protect them. The Information Commissioner has been notified and we will co-operate fully with any of its own enquiries.
I apologise to those Afghans affected by this data breach, and we are now working with them to provide security advice. As I speak, the Minister for the Armed Forces is in the region speaking to neighbouring countries to see what more we can do with both third country and in-country applicants. This is an unacceptable level of service that has let down the thousands of members of the armed forces and veterans, and on behalf of the Ministry of Defence I apologise.
I offer the reassurance that the scheme will continue to operate and bring people back to the United Kingdom for however many are eligible and however long it takes.

John Healey: Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.
There is rightly cross-party concern about this very grave security breach, with names, email addresses and in some cases photographs of 250 Afghan ARAP applicants, all still in Afghanistan and in danger, shared in a mass mailing. This needlessly puts their lives at risk.
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s presence here this morning and welcome his apology, inquiry and commitment to a statement when the House returns after its short recess, but it is not the apology but the action which matters most now. These Afghan interpreters worked alongside our British forces and the Government rightly pledged to protect them. Ministers must make good on those promises now, so can the Defence Secretary answer the following questions: when will he complete that assessment of the increased risk these individuals now face as a result of the data breach; what action is he taking urgently to evacuate them and their families; and why on earth is the MOD mass emailing people who face life-or-death situations?
I know from ARAP evacuees in my constituency who have separated family members still in hiding in Afghanistan that their social media has been blocked. Is there any evidence of email surveillance or interference from the Taliban? How will the MOD remain in contact with these people if they follow the advice to change their email addresses?
Yesterday, Ministers confirmed that 7,900 applications have been made to the ARAP scheme, with 900 so far approved since the end of August. Have there been any data breaches linked to other ARAP applicants?
This is the third known serious defence data breach in as many months. Each time, we have the same response: public apology, internal inquiry, then silence—no report on the inquiry results, no confirmation of action taken to tighten up the system. The Secretary of State rightly started by paying tribute to all involved in Operation Pitting. Our forces were totally professional in that extraordinary evacuation from Kabul, but they must be asking now: how can we trust our back-up at the MOD?

Ben Wallace: The right hon. Member makes some points that I would say are deservedly landed, and I hear what he says. First, yes, we mass email individuals, but we also email individually. This was a weekly catch-up email that was sent to over 250 people to make sure that they were kept in touch, because, quite rightly, as many Members have pointed out on a number of occasions, they need to be engaged and know that there is someone out there keeping it going and trying to get them through the country.
This was a mass email. It did not contain individuals’ home addresses or anything. The photo profiles that the right hon. Member mentioned were ones that were in profiles of the email addresses as opposed to the individuals’ names. Indeed, having looked at all the email addresses, I can say that the vast majority were not specific names, necessarily; they were email addresses rather than particular names. However, that does not change the fundamental impact that the email could have had and could still have.
I have asked Defence Intelligence to go through all the cases and assess the risk to the individuals. That will be ongoing. I can of course get an update, and I will be happy to share with the right hon. Member where we are with those updates on intelligence. I can certainly also give a Privy Council briefing to both him and, indeed, the Scottish National party if it wishes, on the greater security situation on the ground in Afghanistan.
This group was not the wider cohort that the right hon. Member referred to—the people who have applied since ARAP. To put it in perspective, some 68,000 have applied for ARAP. Obviously, when that number is scrubbed and worked through, it reduces significantly, but that is the number of emails that have been sitting in email boxes and have been worked through—and are being worked through—to try to make sure that we find the right people with the right criteria and then, obviously, communicate with them.
This matter relates only to the number of people who had been called forward under Op Pitting, had been security checked and were ready to go but either never made it to the Baron hotel or never made it on to a flight. That number started at 311, as hon. Members will remember. Of the 311, there are 260 principals left in Afghanistan—that is 1,232 people if we include their families—43 principals, or 163 pax in total, in third countries, and eight with whom we have still not been able to establish communications despite trying numerous times. That is the cohort that this relates to. We will do everything we can.
As far as getting those people out of the country, as I said, the Minister for the Armed Forces is now in one of the neighbouring countries and will continue to do that. I have spoken to my defence sections and offered to increase resource and to give reassurances to those third countries. The MOD funds the flying of those people back to the United Kingdom. We have already done so, and I will be happy to update the House as we go about how many people come out of the country.
Some of the other challenges, obviously, relate to security, and we have to have that balance in bringing people back who sometimes turn out, eventually, to have the wrong record; we want to protect the British public from that. But fundamentally, that is the cohort of people that these emails relate to.

Tobias Ellwood: I welcome the statement. I hope that the necessary oversight protocols are now in place to make sure that this does not happen again. The Taliban have not changed. They seek to exact revenge on anyone who worked for NATO. We must get these interpreters out or they will be hunted and killed. If the usual methods, via the ARAP scheme, are not available, may I invite the Secretary of State to take advantage of the chaos in the country to find clandestine means of leading these people to safety?

Ben Wallace: My right hon. Friend will know that I cannot talk about the broader means, but all means will be explored.

Stewart McDonald: I thank the Secretary of State for his apology. I do not doubt the sincerity of it, and I do not doubt for a second the anger that he will have felt when he got the  news of this unacceptable and quite dangerous leak yesterday. However, I have a few questions to follow on from those asked by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), and the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood).
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Taliban have the capability to monitor these people’s emails? I do not want to know if they are monitoring them—I suspect that he would not tell the House even if he did know—but do they have the capability to do so? How long will the investigation take? Who will carry out the investigation? Is the person who has been suspended an employee of the Ministry of Defence or of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office?
Will the Secretary of State outline in a bit more detail, if he is able to, the additional resources that he intends to commit to ensure that people are not exposed to any more danger than they already are as a result of the leak? I understand entirely the point that he makes about using mass email as a communications method, but who signed off on that as an okay way to make that communication?
The shadow Secretary of State is right that when these breaches happen, we get these apologies and then there tends to be silence, so more broadly, what is being done to arrest this worrying trend of data leaks from the Secretary of State’s Department? Is he going to order a broader investigation? I think the House would welcome that.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his series of questions. First, the investigation will be carried out by Admiral Sir Ben Key, the commander of joint operations at PJHQ—permanent joint headquarters—who also led the planning and the evacuation from Kabul.
On data leaks, the hon. Member is right that these are a concern. The previous leak obviously involved a senior official who deliberately broke the regulation, in so far as he took something out the Department. If the regulation had been followed, that would not have been the case. However, although I cannot say too much, I have instigated changes to improve information security within the Department, and I am happy to brief the hon. Member on that.
The “Manual of Protective Security”, the modern rules that govern information security, is, I believe, fit for purpose; it is really the training and the adherence to it that must be improved. I am graduate of something called the classified documents handling course from the early ’90s—I think I am the only saddo who actually knows what type of lock should be on what type of cabinet that links to different types of security classifications. Nevertheless, information security is not something that western Governments are good at, which is why our adversaries seem to be. We have to improve it, and we have to stand by it.
The Taliban, or obviously any Government that control a country, have control of the telephone network. I cannot say too much about what they can and cannot do; suffice it to say that the method we used to communicate with those people is a way of minimising that risk. One of the reasons we involve emails rather than telephone calls is to try to do that, which is important.
On resource, right from the beginning of this process, way back in August, or in July, I was very clear with my senior military commanders and civil servants that they would have whatever resource they needed to process emails and carry people out, for example. We will fly these people back from third countries out of the MOD budget. It is my view that we should continue to stand by them, including using married quarters, for example, in military establishments to look after them if they cannot get places elsewhere. There has not been a resource problem; the challenge is whether people have been asking for the resource within the system to do this.
The individual concerned was a member of the Ministry of Defence, but I am very keen that it is not just the poor person who drafts the email who is held to account, but the chain upwards, to ensure that this does not happen again.

Thomas Tugendhat: I am delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend just now that Admiral Key has got a knighthood. There has not been one earned by anyone better for many years.
The challenge of this event is not the accident, the mistake, that we can see happened. I think we all sympathise with the Ministry of Defence and indeed the Secretary of State; accidents do happen. The challenge is that there are people still there and that the co-ordination for getting people out is still complicated. Will my right hon. Friend commit to working to get a single point of contact for all those in Afghanistan who are seeking to leave? The system whereby some have to apply to the MOD, and others to the Foreign Office or through the Home Office, is excessively complicated and is leading to obstacles, including on at least four different occasions that I can speak of. People are stuck in Lashkar Gah, Kabul or Mazar-e-Sharif, trying to get out, but they are still not getting the smooth transfer that we need.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a really important point. I would ask colleagues to have some understanding of this. The MOD, which is of course charged with defending the nation, has in very short order had to turn part of itself over to processing visas and doing the job that traditionally we would have done in the Home Office. We have taken that on ourselves because of the pace, urgency and, in the earlier time, danger.
As I have said, 68,000 emails arrived, many of which are speculative, concerning refugee status, so not even for the Foreign Office. It is a very big enterprise to take on, which is why I was determined to give all that resource. However, I would ask colleagues to remember that, at the same time, we are doing that in an Afghanistan that we have no control over. We are doing it in what for many is a dangerous environment, with the Taliban clearly in some cases actively seeking out people that they wish to deal with—murder, or whatever they are up to. At the same time, we are dealing with an ever-moving situation on the ground, and not everyone who comes out communicates back.
When I look at the spread of where people have gone to third countries, we find people in Australia, people who got on the next flight, people in other parts of Europe and people in the United States. The United States brought some people back to Germany who immediately claimed asylum to the United Kingdom.  We find, when we contact people, that some are saying, “Thank you very much, but I am quite happy to stay where I am in sunny California or Australia or somewhere like that.” Some have been here for a very long period of time and have not engaged.
The next stage, which I commissioned today, is, quite rightly, a full and detailed survey of the people we have brought back to know even more about them. Obviously, there are data protection issues we have to cross, but it is really important that we get to the bottom of that.

Emma Lewell-Buck: This is another in a long line of serious errors regarding the Government’s Afghan relocations that will cost lives. Can the Secretary of State please advise us how many of the 260 interpreters the Government have been unable to make direct contact with since the breach?

Ben Wallace: Of the 260, there were eight we have not had comms with since the end of Operation Pitting. We have continued to try. The data breach happened at about 5.30 yesterday afternoon and we have engaged with as many of them as possible. I can give the House a rolling update of how many of the 260 have responded. A number have already changed their email address. There is a link in the email that allows them to communicate that securely, but I will keep the House updated on exactly the number as we go. The other point is that the numbers are changing every day, either because people crop up and say, “Actually, I’m in London or Australia,” or because of what is happening on the ground and they make it across the border. Often, when they are travelling, they are not in communication.

Johnny Mercer: Between 2001 and 2014, UK forces employed 2,850 interpreters. From 2014, they were on sub-contracts, so we are looking at 300 or 400 more. The relocation programme up till April this year relocated 440 interpreters. I can account for about 99 interpreters who were rescued during Operation Pitting. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of how many interpreters—not families, but interpreters—the MOD has been able to rescue from Afghanistan? It jars slightly with numbers in the low hundreds that he is presenting to the House today.

Ben Wallace: I am listening to my hon. Friend. Where I take issue with him is that it is not 99. Some 650 principals, not families, came out through Operation Pitting. There were: 850 under categories 1 and 2; 836 under category 4; and 50 under other categories. Some 650 of those were interpreters either through contractors or directly employed, or supporting in the contractor role.

Jamie Stone: The Secretary of State’s anger at hearing the news is not in any way misplaced, and I thank him for coming to the Chamber and making his statement. It seems to me that there is a wealth of difference between a mass email and individual one-to-one contact. Can I seek an assurance that every one of the people we know about is in proper one-to-one contact, either by text or other means, with somebody in the Ministry of Defence or the FCDO who can mentor them, talk to them and help them face this huge problem?

Ben Wallace: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that they have all replied, but we have absolutely taken a view that they should be case managed, on top of the weekly update. To do that, we find it is best through email because of the security issues. Earlier on I was pushing for voice, but actually—I made the point about the Taliban being in control of the telephone network—we are probably better doing it through other means, so it is important that we do that. He is absolutely right. Only today, I pressed on unlimited resource. How many people have we got working on this? Why do we not have more? We have, in total, 50 people dealing with the ARAP scheme. One of our biggest challenges in  the past two weeks was clearing or separating away the 68,000 to focus on the people who come within the criteria that we can put the resource on to. The hon. Gentleman’s ambition and my ambition are the same: we are there, but it is often in slow time because of the delay in the response to our emails.

Julian Lewis: Internet banking constantly asks customers if they are sure they wish to proceed. Surely it would not be too difficult to have an automated reminder or check, if it looks as if an email of a sensitive nature is going to be sent to multiple recipients? In that connection, I have here a printed list of 70 former long-term employees on British contracts in Afghanistan. I propose to hand it to the excellent new Parliamentary Private Secretaries to the Defence ministerial team. When I am informed of a secure address to which I can send it electronically, I will be happy to do so.

Ben Wallace: The base at PJHQ is open to all manner of communication to those individuals, whichever way best keeps them safe and secure. I welcome my two new PPSs, my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland), to the role. What a day to start, but I look forward to working with them. The key here is to engage throughout the process with parliamentarians to make sure that I can keep them as informed as possible.

Carol Monaghan: Following on from the question from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), pretty much every MP uses a caseworker system, a piece of simple software that costs a few hundred pounds per year which ensures that mistakes of this nature cannot happen. Is the Secretary of State looking at using similar, and if not, why not?

Ben Wallace: I am looking at that, both in case management—some case management should already be being used—and in mailing provision. If we do a mass mail, how can we improve that—Mailchimp or that type of thing.

Jack Lopresti: Our nation owes a huge debt of gratitude and honour to the people who helped our forces when they were deployed for 20 years in Afghanistan. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the offer to relocate and assist in bringing them back is open-ended, and we will do whatever we can, even if it takes years to do it, to open up and offer that assistance and help?

Ben Wallace: Yes, the ARAP scheme is open-ended. It will continue and it is an obligation we will stand by. I suspect that, given the nature of that part of the world, people will come through in dribs and drabs. We may find that in four and five years’ time, people come across the border. There is also a challenge when we have the principal in the UK though their families, who are not British citizens, are in Afghanistan. They are eligible; they will be able to come forward. We have to make sure that they are managed. I am hopeful that they are at lesser risk than the principals, because they are often the women and children, but that does not mean to say that we should not have the same urgency and anxiousness for their safety.

Kevan Jones: First, we had secret documents on Afghanistan left at a bus stop in Kent. Now, we have this latest breach of security. I say to the Secretary of State that it has become a little habit forming in his Department to have information leaks. Can I ask him directly: does he have confidence in his Department’s ability to handle sensitive and secret information? He says he has instigated a review. How can he ensure the lessons learned go all the way through the chain of command so it does not happen again?

Ben Wallace: I think the best way to do it is by personal supervision. I fundamentally agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point. We are in a world with even more data and we have to be even more careful. Our adversaries are even more aggressive in finding it. Where there was a breach recently, I took action: that individual is no longer in the Department. In this case, the individual is suspended. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right. Information security should go to the fingertips of organisations, from the most junior to the most senior. I have to say, having been the previous Security Minister, that I have seen some pretty bad examples in the last few years.

Alicia Kearns: There is no doubt as to the frustration and the heartache of the Defence Secretary about this situation. In the correspondence we are having with those still on the ground, recognising that the situation is changing and that we are not on the ground, can he reassure us that extraction advice or advice on how to get to borders is being given to those still on the ground who do not have intel themselves and are too scared to move from where they are currently in hiding?

Ben Wallace: In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) about how we communicate one-to-one versus mass, the one-to-one communications are the place where we dispense advice, depending on their situation and geography.

Yvette Cooper: I have been contacted about the harrowing case of a man who worked as a UK contractor on a UK project for many years and had a specific directed threat from a senior Taliban official. He fled his home with his family, but when his wife returned to the house to collect some belongings a few days ago, the Taliban arrived and she was shot in the head. She died a couple of days later.
The man applied twice for the ARAP scheme and has still not had a reply. Please could the Secretary of State make sure that this case is pursued? Could he also make sure that everyone who has applied gets a personal response? Will he confirm that contractors on UK projects whose families and who themselves are at mortal danger from the Taliban are eligible for the ARAP scheme?

Ben Wallace: On the criteria for the ARAP scheme, I point the right hon. Lady to the website, but what I can say generically is that contractors and the directly employed, if they come under that umbrella of the ARAP scheme, are eligible. I would be very happy to look at that case.
We assess that, despite the huge number of extra applications that have come in since we left, there are approximately 900 credible further cases of ARAP to bring forward; we are processing them at the moment, on top of the 311. We have already brought back 50 from that cohort and we will continue to bring those people out or from third countries where we find them.
The case that the right hon. Lady raises is the most worrying part. Despite the warm words of the Taliban when they started their effort to run the country, we have seen significant numbers of such incidents occurring, which only adds to my sense of sorrow about what happened today.

Philip Hollobone: I commend the Secretary of State for his response to the urgent question, for the action that he has taken and for all his efforts throughout Operation Pitting. Quite a few numbers have been cited around the Chamber; I think he said that there had been 68,000 email applications to ARAP, and I believe that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), said that 7,900 had been processed and 900 had been approved. Could we have a definitive list of the applications received, those being processed and those approved?

Ben Wallace: If my hon. Friend accepts that it will be rolling, because it is moving, I will be happy to write to him with details of a fixed period of time. Obviously those vast amounts were from a range of people and were speculative about potential refugee status as well as ARAP; part of the resource has been taken up trying to separate the two.
The other thing to say is that the Department and I started on ARAP when I went to see the Home Secretary in September 2020. That was when we realised that the previous scheme was not working, and it was why we took the steps that we needed to take. It was signed off by the National Security Council in December 2020. It is a scheme that is in large parts mature, but the final collapse in Kabul has clearly been the biggest test. That is why we will do everything we can for the people left behind.

Kim Johnson: This is the fourth data breach this year. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Department has a systemic problem with data security? What steps will he take to fix the issues and ensure the safety of the thousands still waiting to be evacuated? What assurances can he give to the families in my Liverpool, Riverside constituency who are very concerned about the safety of their loved ones who are still waiting to be evacuated?

Ben Wallace: The assurance that I can give is only limited, I am afraid, given that we are no longer in Afghanistan and given the actions of the Taliban. I think that to give a 100% assurance would be misleading.
On data, as I have said to other Members, it is not good enough. It is not a unique MOD thing, but information security across the board has to improve. We are investing billions of pounds in improving our computer systems and our encryption, which is incredibly important to keep one step ahead. Unfortunately, I cannot talk about a lot of it in public, but it takes significant commitment, funding and British know-how.

Shaun Bailey: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s characteristic candour in addressing the issues. The sad fact is that we will probably see another Operation Pitting at some point in our lifetime. Can he assure me that he will work across the board, particularly with our allies, to ensure that information security standards are improved and that we continue to be at the forefront of protecting the most vulnerable in the world?

Ben Wallace: I think that the lesson learned is that this was an evacuation in the 21st century in which emails, WhatsApp, Twitter and Facebook were a running commentary, but the inboxes of serving officers and soldiers in Kabul on the operation were also filling up with emails from former colleagues in the hundreds, saying “Can you get X and Y out?” It would not have happened in my day, because we did not have that type of network. It is a new phenomenon; today I met the Five Eyes chiefs of defence staff, for example, and we discussed the change.
We will have to take into consideration how we do many operations in the full glow of social media, with people out there who can communicate but who might not be safe. Usually, we equate being able to communicate with being safe; now we are in a very different world. I think that that is a lesson for all militaries around the world to learn.

Andrew Slaughter: An Afghan family I saw at my surgery yesterday told me that a relative working with coalition forces had been literally blown to bits by the Taliban in a targeted assassination two days before they took Kabul. Other relatives are similarly at risk, but the response that I have had from the MOD says that they are not eligible for ARAP. We are assembling more evidence in that case, but as I have had only four replies to more than 100 live cases, I am not hopeful. Even if they are accepted on the scheme, what do I tell them to do next?

Ben Wallace: I understand the hon. Member’s desire to manage his individual cases, but we are doing everything we can with the people who are referred to us, either via Members or directly through the application process. We are putting all our resource into dealing with them. We will keep colleagues and Members up to date as much as possible, but if he wants specific advice for each case, I urge him to make sure that it is delivered by the people who are co-ordinating it. If there are people who are not eligible and who he thinks should be eligible, I will be very happy to look again at their cases, if he writes to me with the details, and make sure that we see what we can do.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his commitment to update the House after the recess. When he does so in five or six weeks’ time, will he please ensure that he gives an accurate assessment of the additional threats and intimidation that Afghan nationals face as a result of the data breach? I am concerned less about the technical nature of the failing, however important that is, than about the lives of the individuals and their families.

Ben Wallace: The right hon. Member puts his question very well. I will be happy to update the House on the threat situation, both for Afghans who worked for us and for us in the United Kingdom overall, and on any growth in the terrorism threat from Afghanistan.

Rachael Maskell: Asking people simply to change their email address seems woefully inadequate, given that names can be extracted from email addresses. What additional security advice has the Secretary of State given to the interpreters on the email list and their families?

Ben Wallace: As I have said, they will be contacted or have been contacted. Where, on a one-to-one basis, there is a case management process, we will try to tailor advice on counter-intelligence methods, on how people can protect themselves and on locations that we think are safer.

Chris Stephens: Although the breach is in his Department, will the Secretary of State outline what discussions he is having with his counterparts in the Foreign Office and the Home Office? Are any specific measures being taken now to secure information on all cases processed? What assessment can he give of how the Ministry of Defence ensures that the correct information goes to the correct part of Government so that we can help those we have a duty to help?

Ben Wallace: Among the 50 personnel working on the ARAP scheme in PJHQ, there are a number embedded in other Departments whose main job is to liaise on everything from Parliament all the way through to the Home Office and the Foreign Office, to ensure that  information is cross-checked. Some of it is cross-checking, because some of the applicants have applied to all schemes, but I hear what the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), said about the demand for a single point of contact, which might help going forward.

Margaret Ferrier: I have a constituency case about which I have written to the Home Office. It relates to an 18-year-old woman who married a British constituent of mine. Her father worked as a translator for a number of allies in Afghanistan, albeit not the UK. Her parents and siblings may be evacuated, but she will be left behind, alone and vulnerable. This data breach is only exacerbating the worry and distress that she feels, still stuck in Kabul. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with colleagues about how such vulnerable citizens will be supported?

Ben Wallace: The hon. Lady has raised a challenging case. The person concerned is probably an adult, she is not herself the interpreter, and he worked for a third country. However, if the hon. Lady sends me the details, I shall be happy to approach that third country to see whether we can assist in the case, or get them to assist in it.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his dedication to the job in hand, and for answering these questions as well.
In Northern Ireland, the Royal Irish Regiment, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, prison officers and elected representatives are only too well aware of the awful feeling of knowing that one’s safe haven—one’s home—is endangered What has been done to help those who responded with personal details to enable them to relocate quickly and safely in the interim?

Ben Wallace: The first thing to do is establish contact with as many of them as possible, which we are doing, and I have offered to update the House on how many we have contacted. I will see what I can do by the end of today, or certainly by the end of this week. We need to establish new contact details and get some assurances about them, but at the same time we need to start or continue the one-to-one management of their cases.

Salisbury Incident 2018: Update

Lindsay Hoyle: I should tell the House that I have reached a special agreement with the Home Secretary to extend the length of the statement, because I was given advance notice. I believe that the Opposition have been informed of this.

Priti Patel: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on today’s announcement by Counter Terrorism Policing that the Crown Prosecution Service has authorised charges against a third individual in relation to the 2018 Salisbury attack, an appalling event that shook the entire country and united our allies in condemnation. I thank the Opposition for their courtesy and support in allowing some of their parliamentary time to be used for the statement. The House will of course understand that this is an ongoing investigation, and that we are therefore limited in terms of what can be said about these three individuals.
In March 2018, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia, commonly known as Novichok. Two officers from Wiltshire police who were involved in searching the victims’ home were also poisoned with the same agent. In July 2018, a further two members of the public were found unwell in Amesbury, both of whom had been exposed to Novichok. Tragically, one of them, Dawn Sturgess, died. An inquest into her death is ongoing. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the loved ones of Dawn today.
This House has profound differences with Russia. In annexing Crimea in 2014, igniting the flames of conflict in eastern Ukraine and threatening western democracies by, for instance, interfering in their elections, it has challenged the fundamental basis of international order. Although attacks such as the one in Salisbury are uncommon, this is not the first time Russia has committed a brazen attack in the UK. Today the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that it was responsible for the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko; that supports the findings of the independent Litvinenko inquiry. However, as the then Government made clear following the Salisbury attack in 2018 and as I reiterate today, we will not tolerate such malign activity here in the United Kingdom.
The UK, under successive Governments, has responded with strength and determination. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), then Prime Minister, announced in 2018, 250 detectives were involved in the Salisbury murder investigation, working round the clock to discover who was responsible. On 5 September 2018, the independent Director of Public Prosecutions announced that there was sufficient evidence to bring charges against two Russian nationals for conspiracy to murder Sergei Skripal; the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal, Yulia Skripal and Nick Bailey; causing grievous bodily harm with intent to Yulia Skripal and Nick Bailey; and possession and use of a chemical weapon, contrary to the Chemical Weapons Act 1996.
The two Russian nationals were known as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, but the police believed these to be aliases. The then Prime Minister announced  that the Government had concluded that the two men were members of the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, and that the operation had almost certainly been approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state. I want to recognise the exemplary work of our emergency services, intelligence agencies, armed forces and law enforcement staff who led the initial response to this despicable and outrageous attack; I also pay tribute to the ongoing work to bring the perpetrators to justice. We will not let this go.
As Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dean Haydon has said, this investigation has been extraordinarily complex, and our country is fortunate that so many brave people do such outstanding work to keep us safe. As a result of those efforts, the police have evidence that Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov are aliases for Alexander Mishkin and Anatoliy Chepiga, and that both are members of the GRU. The CPS has now authorised charges against a third individual, known as Sergey Fedotov. The Counter Terrorism Policing investigation established that Fedotov had entered the UK on a flight from Moscow to London Heathrow, and had stayed at a hotel in central London between 2 and 4 March 2018 before returning to Moscow. While in the UK, he had met Petrov and Boshirov on more than one occasion in central London.
The CT Policing investigation has established that Fedotov is in fact Denis Sergeev, that he is also a member of the GRU, and that all three men previously worked together for the GRU as part of additional operations outside Russia All three are now wanted by UK police, and arrest warrants are in place for them. The police have applied for an Interpol notice against Fedotov, mirroring those already in place against the other two suspects. Russia has repeatedly refused to allow its nationals to stand trial overseas. That was also the case following the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, when a UK extradition request was refused. This has only added to the heartache of those hurt by these attacks, and, inevitably, has further damaged our relations with Russia.
As was made clear following the Salisbury attack in 2018, should any of these individuals ever travel outside Russia, we will work with our international partners and take every possible step to detain them and extradite them so that they face justice. After the attack in Salisbury, my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) put in place the toughest package that the UK has levied against another state for more than 30 years, consisting of diplomatic, legislative and economic measures. We continue to take robust steps to counter the threat posed by the Russian state. In 2018, 23 undeclared Russian intelligence officers were immediately expelled from the UK. In solidarity, 28 other countries and NATO joined us, which resulted in the largest collective expulsion ever—of more than 150 Russian intelligence officers. That fundamentally degraded Russian intelligence capability for years to come.
The Government will continue to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with all the additional tools that they need to deal with the full range of state threats, which continue to evolve. In direct response to the Salisbury attack, we introduced new powers to enable the police to stop, question, search and detain individuals at the UK border to determine whether they  are spies or otherwise involved in hostile activity. These vital powers are already helping the security services and law enforcement agencies to protect the UK from the very real and serious threat posed by states that seek to undermine and destabilise our country.
In July 2020, we published a full and comprehensive response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, which addressed point by point all the key themes and recommendations raised by the Committee, but we are going even further and have committed to introducing new legislation to counter state threats and protect the United Kingdom. Earlier this summer, we held a public consultation on the Government’s proposals, to improve our ability to detect, respond to, and prevent state threats, keep our citizens safe and protect sensitive data and intellectual property. Responses to that consultation are currently being considered and we will return with comprehensive legislation.
Another crucial strand of this work is combating illicit finance. To secure our global prosperity, squeezing dirty money and money launderers out of the UK is our priority. We are at the forefront of the international fight against illicit finance, combating the threat from source to destination. We have introduced a new global human rights sanctions regime and a global anti-corruption sanctions regime. The National Crime Agency continues to lead UK efforts to bring the full power of law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites and their assets, including through increased checks on private flights, customs and freight travel.
In July and September 2020, working in tandem with the EU, we announced sanctions against the Russian intelligence services for cyber-attacks against the UK and her allies. We have also taken robust action in response to the poisoning and attempted murder of Alexei Navalny, enforcing asset freezes and travel bans against 13 individuals and a Russian research institute involved in the case. The Government will continue to respond extremely robustly to the enduring and significant threat from the Russian state. We continue to make huge strides to counter this threat and to increase our resilience and that of our allies to Russian malign activity. We respect the people of Russia, but we will do whatever it takes—everything it takes—to keep our country safe. We will work actively to deter and defend against the full spectrum of threats emanating from Russia until relations with its Government improve.
I would like to end by paying tribute to the resilience of the people of Salisbury, who suffered a sickening and despicable act in their community, and to the people of Amesbury, who lost one of their own in the most dreadful circumstances. Our Government will be relentless in our pursuit of justice for the victims of these attacks and continue to do whatever is necessary to keep our people safe. I commend this statement to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: The sub judice resolution means that, other than when legislating, the House does not discuss issues that are active in the UK courts. However, where in the Chair’s opinion cases concern issues of national importance, reference to them may be made. I am prepared to allow such references during the course of this statement.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her statement and for giving me advance sight of it. I am also grateful to the Minister for Security and Borders, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), for the advance briefing yesterday.
The use of a nerve agent, a chemical weapon, on British soil was an outrage and we unite across the House in our condemnation of it. We also unite in our praise of our emergency services, whose response was nothing short of remarkable. At the time, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), was clear that, based on intelligence, this was not a rogue operation, given the GRU’s well-established chain of command, and that it was almost certainly approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state. Let me be direct, as shadow Home Secretary—as I was then, as shadow Security Minister, and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), Leader of the Opposition, also was—that Labour is clear that the Russian state was responsible for this appalling act using a chemical weapon. Today, as the Home Secretary has said, the European Court of Human Rights has also confirmed the Russian state’s responsibility for the killing of Alexander Litvinenko.
I thank counter-terror policing for their dedicated work, as well as the wider law enforcement community, our security services and the Crown Prosecution Service. The additional information we have today is the result of many hours of careful investigation that identified a third suspect, their membership of the GRU and the real identities of these men. I shall of course choose my words carefully, Mr Speaker, but I appreciate the barriers that still lie in the way of those people facing justice in the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary has mentioned the arrest warrants and the Interpol notices, but will she give us more detail on what she said about ensuring that everything possible would be done through diplomatic channels with our friends and partners around the world to ensure that if those men ever leave the Russian state, they will be apprehended?
The consequences of this appalling act have been profound. We think of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, who spent weeks in hospital in a critical condition. Our thoughts are also with the two police officers who were poisoned. It is the most sobering reminder of the unknown dangers our police officers face every time they work a shift. I have met Sergeant Nick Bailey and thanked him and all his colleagues in Wiltshire police for their service, and I thank them once again for their bravery, as I am sure the whole House does. Today we remember Dawn Sturgess, who died after coming into contact with the Novichok, and her family. We also think of the illness it caused to Charlie Rowley. A life lost and lives badly damaged by this terrible act. We also remember the people of Salisbury and of Amesbury who, in the face of despair, came together. I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who helped his constituents during that terrible period.
This all underlines the continuing importance of the NATO alliance as fundamental for our security in the 21st century. It also underlines the imperative of implementing each and every recommendation in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report,  which was published in July last year. That report must be taken with the utmost seriousness by the Government. Can the Home Secretary update the House on the progress on implementing its 21 recommendations? Can she further confirm that the forthcoming counter-state threats Bill mentioned in the Queen’s Speech will put all those recommendations into law, without exception?
The report of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, published in recent days, raised deep concerns about the National Security Council, the cross-government machinery that supports it, and the Prime Minister’s level of attendance. The Government’s response is due by 19 November, but in the circumstances will the Home Secretary confirm today that that response will be speeded up and made urgent? She also mentioned the issue of illicit finance. The Government imposed the first Magnitsky sanctions in July 2020. She mentioned 13 people in her statement who had been made subject to travel bans and asset freezes, but how many in total have now been subjected to Magnitsky sanctions? Can she also confirm that resources will be dedicated to ensuring that the cyber-threat posed by Russia can be effectively dealt with? Finally, let us unite in condemnation of this vile act committed at the behest of another state on our own British soil, and make it clear that we will do all we can to ensure that such a thing never happens again.

Priti Patel: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for the reflective way in which he has responded to today’s statement. It is correct that the charging announcement is the result of the tireless work that has been undertaken over the past few years, and of the ongoing work by policing, counter-terrorism policing, security partners and our intelligence agencies. I think that everyone in the House is fully reflective of that. Today’s statement and the charges are a sobering reminder of the threats that our country has been exposed to.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, first and foremost, the use of the Novichok nerve agent on British soil was an utterly reckless act. Of course, all our thoughts remain with those whose lives have been changed or lost. This was not a rogue operation but a shameless and deliberate attack, as we all recognise, and it has concentrated the whole of Government in how we not only respond to but prepare against such attacks to protect our country, our domestic homeland, in every single aspect of our national security work in the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Home Office, the national security apparatus and the entire UK intelligence community.
I reassure the House and the right hon. Gentleman that our resourcing is always there. Along with the whole-system approach, the resourcing effectively governs the entire UK intelligence community covering cyber, hostile state activity, the diplomatic aspects and the Magnitsky sanctions. We have applied our diplomatic levers internationally, working with our NATO allies and counterparts, as the right hon. Gentleman and I have both mentioned, in the expulsion of former intelligence officers.
None of that changes. We continue with absolute resolve and resolute determination to do everything possible to protect British citizens and our domestic homeland. Naturally, on the back of today’s announcement, there will be further investigations and, inevitably, more  law enforcement work with our allies. I assure the House that all that work is under way, as all hon. and right hon. Members would expect.
The right hon. Gentleman also touched on forthcoming legislation against hostile activity, as well as the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We will update the House in due course, and I hope he will respect that there is cross-Government work on the recommendations. We have already consulted on future legislation, and there is further work taking place. We will, of course, share further information on the national security element with the House, the right hon. Gentleman and other colleagues.

Julian Lewis: I am sure the whole House welcomes the fact that the Home Secretary has chosen to come here today to volunteer this statement. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that the links firmly associating these murderous activities with the Russian state have been made clear. Does my right hon. Friend recall that, a few days after the death of Alexander Litvinenko in November 2006, the BBC published an account of how the upper House of the Russian Parliament, the Federation Council, had adopted a new law in the previous July that the BBC said
“formally permits the extra-judicial killings abroad of those Moscow accuses of ‘extremism’”?
As we know, one of the suspected killers later became a Russian Member of Parliament.
In the light of this brazenness and shamelessness, does my right hon. Friend agree that we ought to be very careful not only of Russians who come to this country with poison but of Russians who come to this country with funds with which they hope to make investments that allow them to get a handhold on our critical national infrastructure, which we should resist at all costs?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that the Russian state targets its perceived enemies at home and abroad, and we have seen far too much of that. We will always continue to work closely with the relevant law enforcement agencies to protect individuals. He is also right to highlight critical national infrastructure and other vulnerabilities, which is exactly what our future legislation will aim to address.

Ian Blackford: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement and for the opportunity to have a briefing from the Minister for Security and Borders, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).
I welcome the ongoing investigation into the Salisbury poisonings and the charging of a third suspect. Every avenue and every effort must be made to bring these killers to justice.
I also welcome this morning’s judgment by the European Court of Human Rights on the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. For those remaining few who apparently still needed convincing, this judgment is firm and final confirmation of Russian state murder on this island. There are no ifs, no buts and no maybes. Whether the Litvinenko murder or the attacks in Salisbury, these were acts of state-sponsored terrorism on the streets of the United Kingdom.
We are still uncovering the level and depth of Russian interference across liberal democracies, because the Litvinenko murder began the process of lifting the lid on the sheer scale of Russian money laundering, political interference and, ultimately, violence that had gone either unseen or, worse, unchallenged. The attacks in Salisbury in March 2018 show that the lid may have been lifted but that the state-sponsored terrorism continues to this very day.
I have a number of questions for the Home Secretary on how we meet all the layers of this Russian threat. The Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council will meet tomorrow. What stance and what sanction will the Foreign Secretary take with her Russian counterpart at that meeting so that these suspects are forced to face justice?
The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russian subversion found that successive Governments welcomed the oligarchs and their money with open arms, with allies of the Kremlin easily laundering illegal Russian money in what they refer to as “Londongrad”. Will this Government finally launch a full independent investigation into where this illegal Russian money has gone, including money that has been funnelled into companies, assets and, indeed, political parties? As part of this, we need to tighten up the legislation on Scottish limited partnerships.
Finally, it is self-evident that co-operation with NATO allies is crucial to our defence against the Russian threat. The Prime Minister assured me last week that the AUKUS arrangement had the blessing of NATO, which clearly is not the case. Are the Government now willing to open up the agreement to include other NATO allies?

Priti Patel: The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of important points, including on today’s ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. He is correct that, as we have always made clear, the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was a blatant and unacceptable breach of international law and civilised behaviour—he used similarly strong language. Successive Governments have taken a robust approach, including following the publication of the Litvinenko inquiry, and this Government will always pursue every available means to bring those responsible to justice, and we will not let go of that. We will continue to deter such reckless and malign actions in future.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the UN General Assembly is meeting this week, and obviously there will be security meetings with our P5 partners. I assure him and the House that the Foreign Secretary and the FCDO are undertaking a range of diplomatic engagements in UN forums right now, as everyone would rightly expect, in relation to this and other associated matters. I also highlight the wider bilateral and diplomatic work and handling on the AUKUS agreement, which he also mentioned.
The right hon. Gentleman and I both mentioned the serious and important issues of dirty money, money laundering and the facilitation of Russian money that comes through the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware and has sight of the Government’s  work on unexplained wealth orders, investigations with law enforcement and the work with the economic and financial institutions, which takes place in a very detailed and strategic way. That work continues, and the Security Minister and I will be meeting many of our counterparts within financial institutions tomorrow to continue to up the ante and focus on what more can be done on money laundering, following the money in every way and dealing with the routes and where that money leads to assets being purchased and investments being made in the UK, all of which, clearly, we need to change.

David Davis: I welcome the Home Secretary’s response today, which I have to say contrasts with the responses of previous Governments to the Litvinenko murder on Putin’s orders, including that of our own Government under David Cameron, who tried to prevent an inquiry and I am afraid subordinated justice to trade interests. They were overruled in 2014 by the High Court, which is how we end up today with the European Court of Human Rights ruling against Putin’s Russia on this killing. After that, the Skripal attempted killing happened. The lesson is very clear: if we do not act very firmly, they will do it again. So we should act, not just against the GRU officers the Home Secretary has properly highlighted, but against all the manifestations of the Russian mafia state. I am afraid that that includes some of the oligarchs in London who act as proxies for Putin’s Russia; whether they own property, companies, newspapers or football clubs, it does not matter; we should act to make sure they do not corrupt our state. The Home Secretary is doing the right thing pursuing the perpetrators of this evil crime, but will she talk to other members of the Cabinet to find other ways in which to punish this evil Government who gave these orders? If our Government do not act more firmly now than we did after the Litvinenko murder, this will happen again.

Priti Patel: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and suggestions. He is correct in the proposition he has spoken of; there is much more to do. That is partly the purpose of my statement today, not just in providing the wider update, and rightly so, but in illustrating that the Government will not tolerate these types of malign activity—state sponsored terror that has taken place on the streets of the UK. Importantly, as a Government we have to do the right thing in protecting our citizens and our domestic homeland. He is right about this and that work will continue across the whole of government.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for this statement, and for the work of the police and of the intelligence and security agencies to have brought us to this point. The Salisbury attack was a truly appalling attack on UK soil, with charges now laid against the agents of a foreign state. It should be unthinkable that this could happen and for it to come at the same time as the ECHR confirmation that Russia was behind the murder of Alexander Litvinenko is further disturbing evidence of Russia’s willingness to use dangerous weapons in other countries. I support the work the Government have been doing on this, but may I ask her specifically about the review launched three years ago into the so-called “golden visas”, the tier 1 visas, to look at  oligarchs with close links to the Russian state who might be using criminal money and others? We have not heard any update on that review, so will she update the House now on what work is being done?

Priti Patel: I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions and remarks. She is right to point to the whole area of the tier 1 investor visa route, which, historically, as the whole House is well aware, has led to a range of the wider issues we have just been speaking about—investments, illicit finance, corruption and a lack of transparency. The purpose of the review was to look at exactly that. I cannot provide the full update right now, but I want to reassure the House and to let it know that the whole of government is acutely aware of how these routes have previously been used. I would go as far as to say they have been abused for malign purposes—for entry into the UK to do us harm and to harm our country. That is why we will never rule out changes, which we constantly make to our immigration system and to our visas.

John Howell: I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept my congratulations on her mentioning the ECHR judgment on the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, after which many of us thought such events would never occur again. Will she welcome the calls I have made this morning, as the leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, for an urgent debate on this issue next week at the full meeting of the Council of Europe, both to gain support for our move against Russia and to make sure we can address the Russians face to face, to show them down?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is correct in the case he is making. There has to be a fair degree of openness, honesty and transparency on the acts that have taken place; lives have been lost and today’s ruling is significant, so he is absolutely right in the way in which he has been making the case, and I hope he achieves the outcome he is seeking.

Kevan Jones: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and join her in thanking the security services and all those involved. The judgment sends a clear message that even though these individuals are outside our jurisdiction, we are not going to give up pursuing them. Will she share the intelligence behind the latest developments with the Intelligence and Security Committee? I welcome her commitment to implement the recommendations from the Russia report, particularly in respect of the registration of foreign individuals pursuing other states’ interests. Those recommendations are important, but there are existing weapons in her armoury that need to be used, including against the facilitators of these acts—the estate agents, lawyers, accountants in London. If she grasps that, and her new Security Minister grasps it, she could make some great progress and hurt the Russians very hard.

Priti Patel: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions and the points he has made. He is right about the tools or levers that exist across government and across law enforcement—many strong laws are in place. As ever, this is about the application of the law and the levers that could help to denude capability further, so he is absolutely right on the point he makes. On the ISC,  we will be in touch directly with the Committee after today’s statement, even on the basis of how information and intelligence is shared.

Edward Leigh: The Home Secretary mentions the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which I am a member, has pathetically allowed Russia back into the Assembly and has done so for one reason only—money. These Putin thugs strut around there and ignore any motion passed by the Assembly. Russia does not care a damn about the ECHR and will simply ignore it, but this same court is constantly invoked by human rights lawyers when we try to save lives at sea, when dealing with migrants, or when we are trying to run our prisons. This is just a fig leaf for tyranny. Perhaps the time has come to replace the Human Rights Act with our own British rights Act and get out of the ECHR altogether.

Priti Patel: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. Today’s judgment and ruling from the ECHR is important and significant, particularly in the context of what we are speaking about. He is also right to touch on some of the other issues he has mentioned, which obviously link to our work in the Home Office in dealing with illegal migration. There is always more we can do and we would welcome greater support, through some of the courts, to help us in how we tackle some of these very challenging issues.

Derek Twigg: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. We now know that not one, not two, but three Russian agents were able to get into this country by basically just walking into the airport. In the statement, the Home Secretary talked about
“new powers to enable the police to stop, question, search, and detain individuals…to determine whether they are spies or otherwise”.
Does she believe that those new powers would have prevented the three individuals from getting into this country?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point with his question. The fact of the matter is that those powers were introduced as a direct response to the Salisbury attack, as part of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, to enable the police to effectively stop, question, search and detain individuals. Those powers came in after the attack and there is no doubt that they would have made a difference at that particular time. The fact of the matter is that those powers are now being used in the way we have spoken about and to which I referred in my statement. On a day-to-day basis people are being stopped, detained and asked significant questions. As I said in my statement, we will look at everything—all measures—in terms of how we not only protect our border but prevent individuals with malign intent from coming to our country.

Philip Hollobone: I commend the Home Secretary for her statement and the action that she and the Crown Prosecution Service have taken. To follow on from the previous question, state-sponsored terrorism in the UK cannot happen if state-sponsored terrorists are blocked from entry. This case was made worse because they were carrying poison. Regardless of any new powers, people travelling on false passports should not be allowed into the country. Is the Home  Secretary confident that the requisite changes have been made at the passport entry desk to prevent GRU agents—they used to be known as the KGB—from coming into this country when they want, leaving when they want and doing all sorts of things that we do not want them to do in the United Kingdom?

Priti Patel: Yes. My hon. Friend raises an important and serious point about wider security and how we keep out those who should not come into our country. As I mentioned, the changes introduced in 2019 speak exactly to that, but not only that: they also speak not just to the primary control point at the border but to the level of information exchanged behind the scenes among intelligence agencies, law enforcement operatives and Border Force, way before individuals even come towards our country. Those significant changes have been made over a period of time.

Stewart McDonald: I do not disagree with anything that was in the Home Secretary’s statement and commend every word of it, but will she explain something that I am perhaps just not understanding? Why is it that we were able to identify the two individuals so swiftly after the event but it is has taken three years to identify the third individual who was involved in the Salisbury poisoning? I know it is a complex investigation, but I would be grateful if she could outline something that I am perhaps not picking up.
Given that we are talking about a breach of the chemical weapons convention, why has the Home Secretary not announced a single new sanction or diplomatic response, given that we know that the crime involved more people than we initially thought who came to this country and left? Why were there not more expulsions or sanctions? Does the range of threats emanating from Russia, whether in Ukraine, Salisbury or Syria, not underline the need for greater Euro-Atlantic defence and security co-operation, not less?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. There are a number of points to make. First, the hon. Gentleman himself referred, as have I, to the fact that the investigation is complex. A great deal of work has been done by the security and intelligence agencies and counter-terrorism policing, but I am not in a position to speak of the details at the Dispatch Box today, because there are a lot of sensitivities, including in terms of how much of that information has come together. I know that the hon. Gentleman and the entire House will respect that.
On the wider threats, it is fair to say that from this Dispatch Box and across the House and its various Committees, including the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee—across all aspects of national security—we see Russia at the heart of not only the many threats that some of us see on a near-daily basis, but the type of threats that do not manifest because of the brilliant, exemplary work done by those who are employed to protect our homeland.
The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the wider work that could take place; we rule nothing out. As I said earlier in response to the questions from his colleague, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber  (Ian Blackford), discussions are taking place. The UN General Assembly is taking place and the Foreign Secretary is currently at the UN. All such discussions with our allies and many of our bilateral counterparts are absolutely in flight. We are constantly having discussions—more so now, at this particularly pressing time—to consider the other levers we have and what the next steps should be.

Lilian Greenwood: I join the Home Secretary in extending our gratitude to all those who responded to this terrible crime, to all those who are working to keep our country and its citizens safe and, of course, to those who are seeking to bring those responsible to justice.
It is clearly essential that we do everything possible to respond to the investigations and learn from the attack. Will the Home Secretary say a little more about the progress that has been made and outline how many of the recommendations in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report have already been implemented?

Priti Patel: If I may, I refer the hon. Lady to my earlier comments on that. Work is taking place across Government—not just from a Home Office perspective but involving the FCDO, too—and much of it involves our national security apparatus. There will in due course be an update on the report and its recommendations. I ask the hon. Lady and all colleagues in the House to persevere and we will obviously come back in due course.

Rachael Maskell: Today is a sober reminder of the scale of the security threats that we face as a country. I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. While we reflect on the terrible events in Salisbury three years ago, it is right to remind ourselves of the cyber-threats that the country faces. Will the Home Secretary say a little more about the work her Department is doing to deter the investment that countries such as Russia are putting into breaking our cyber-security?

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, as have been many other right hon. and hon. Members, to touch on the cyber-security threat to our country. Of course, cyber-threats manifest themselves in many forms and guises, from attacks on key and critical national infrastructure right down through attacks on local government, financial institutions and retail outlets. Extensive work takes place across the entire UK intelligence community. The National Cyber Security Centre is led by incredible individuals with whom we have the privilege to work on a daily basis, and there is work across the Cabinet Office as well. Extensive work is taking place in the cyber space, and not just Russia but other countries are involved in the cyber-threat. When it comes to cyber, all Members have a responsibility to ensure that we take all the necessary measures and steps, and our local authorities and the organisations that we come across on a daily basis should also make sure that they are doing everything to enhance their cyber-security.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Among those in and outside the House, there can be no doubt about the Secretary of State’s determination to catch those responsible for the murder of British citizens on British soil by subversive Russian agents. Will the Secretary of State confirm what  discussions she has had with other countries regarding the parameters of diplomatic immunity and whether we need to and should reconsider them?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the need to work with other countries and, as I said earlier, to use every diplomatic lever we have. Post the appalling Salisbury incident in 2018, we saw the work led by our then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the collective diplomatic effort in terms of expulsions and sanctions. I touched on the fact that the Foreign Secretary is currently in New York at the UN General Assembly, and we are in no doubt that we are pressing every single lever. The FCDO and the Foreign Secretary will rightly lead on the key discussions.

Unauthorised Development (Offences)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Gareth Bacon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make unauthorised development without planning permission an offence; to prohibit retrospective planning applications; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that everyone who engages with the planning system is on a level playing field and follows the same procedures. It is not to remove permitted development rights, nor is it to target particular communities. Regrettably, in the current planning system, there are loopholes that are all too frequently exploited and, to ensure fairness, it is important that they are closed.
Under current planning rules, development without permission is not a criminal offence. While failure to comply with an enforcement notice is a criminal offence, getting to that point is rare and is very often an overly long and costly process. Too often, people are gaming the system by proceeding with development work, sometimes on a large scale, without having first received or even applied for planning permission. Those engaging in such practices are gambling that, even if the local authority becomes aware of an unauthorised development, if the development is sufficiently advanced, it will prove too time-consuming and costly for the local authority to do much about it. Evidence seems to suggest that they may be right. While there are a range of enforcement powers open to local authorities, including enforcement, contravention and stop notices, they do not appear to be a sufficient deterrent.
Government data from March 2021 show that, in the previous year across England, just under 3,000 enforcement notices were issued, 3,500 planning contravention notices were served, and 49 injunctions were granted by a county court or the High Court.
There are many examples of unauthorised development to be found across the country, both large and small. I will give one current example that is currently impacting on my own constituency of Orpington. As I speak today, an unauthorised development is taking place on Wheatsheaf Hill, on the border of my Orpington constituency and neighbouring Sevenoaks. Since the turn of the year, much activity has taken place on this greenbelt site, where a large area of wooded land has been cleared, six mobile homes have been installed and further work is continuing—all without planning permission. This has caused great concern both to me and to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), as residents on both sides of the constituency boundary have been raising increasing levels of alarm on a daily basis throughout the year.
It has been, to say the least, a very frustrating process. The local planning authority, Bromley Council, was eventually able to obtain a court injunction, but work on the site has continued unabated. Despite daily evidence being provided by residents, including written statements, photographs, videos and drone footage, work has continued with no regard to the court injunction, the objections of local people or the local council. I have personally witnessed work taking place, and I am grateful to those constituents who have provided me with reports of  activity and supporting evidence. Sadly, I have also received reports of significant levels of aggression being directed by those responsible for this particular development towards local residents, council officers, and even, incredibly, the local police.
Under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a local planning authority can consider a retrospective planning application for works or a change of use that has already been carried out. This type of application is dealt with in the same way as a normal planning application, although the development has already taken place. In theory, therefore, the amount of work carried out by the local planning authority is approximately the same as an application submitted in advance of a development taking place. However, as is the case in the example that I have just cited, retrospective applications will often be controversial, attracting a lot of public attention and correspondence, which can greatly increase the workload of the relevant case officer.
Planning officers have confirmed that retrospective applications often tend to be invalid upon receipt, and this creates additional unnecessary work for the planning authority to resolve them. However, it is possible that the real cost is the fact that the concept exists at all, as the fact that it is possible to apply retrospectively proactively encourages unauthorised development. The evidence is overwhelming that, on a large number of occasions, developers believe that once a development is in place they are more likely to get planning permission. That is an encouragement for them to take that risk.
In most cases, where retrospective applications are refused, enforcement action follows, which can be lengthy and costly for the local planning authorities. Indeed, some applicants deliberately draw out a situation where  they know enforcement action is inevitable, knowing that they will have a right of appeal if it is refused. While enforcement notices can be issued, the right of appeal means that a breach of planning can last very significant periods of time before the site in question can be restored to its former state—if indeed it can be restored at all.
The scope of this proposed legislation is therefore to remove remaining permissible grounds for unauthorised developments. Instead, by making unauthorised developments an offence, both the appeal route and the right of retrospective applications will be removed.
In closing, I wish to express my gratitude to Bromley councillors Tony Owen and Colin Smith, who provided me with much of the original thinking behind this Bill, and to colleagues who are supporting me in the Chamber today. We are acutely aware of the damage that this problem causes, and we are supporting our constituents where such development has blighted their communities.
I recognise the challenges that a private Member’s Bill faces to get onto the statute book, which is why I request that Ministers meet with me and co-sponsors to consider adopting this legislation as part of any forthcoming planning Bill that emerges. Together, we have the opportunity to bring about lasting change to the planning system for the benefit of our constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Gareth Bacon, Lee Anderson, Mr John Baron, Felicity Buchan, Gareth Davies, Ben Everitt, Jonathan Gullis, Tom Hunt, Marco Longhi, Sir Robert Neill, Tom Randall and David Simmonds present the Bill.
Gareth Bacon accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 December, and to be printed (Bill 165).

Opposition Day - 6th Allotted DayOpposition Day

Working People’s Finances:  Government Policy

Rosie Winterton: I advise the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Before we start the debate, let me tell Members that if they wish to participate in the debate, it is essential that they are here at the beginning. If they are not, they will not be called. It is also essential that hon. and right hon. Members stay to the end of the debate to hear the wind-ups. If there are those who have not put into speak but wish to do so, please can they bob so that they catch my eye?

Bridget Phillipson: I beg to move,
That this House is concerned about the negative impact of Government policy on the finances of working people, with a growing squeeze on living standards caused by the £1,040 per year reduction to universal credit, the rise in National Insurance Contributions for low and middle income workers, increases in council tax, the freezing of the personal income tax allowance from April 2022, the increasing cost of household energy bills, the highest petrol prices since 2013 and the potential for the largest rail fare increase in a decade, the fastest rise in private rental prices since 2008, successive above inflation increases in childcare costs, and rising prices resulting from the supply chain disruption caused by worker and supply shortages; and calls on the Government to change the direction of its policies on these issues because they have created an avoidable and unacceptable burden on working people.
Before I begin in earnest, I welcome the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), to his new role and congratulate him on his appointment.
In our country today, working families face a sudden squeeze on living standards on a scale not seen for a generation: incomes are coming down; prices are going up, especially energy prices; taxes are going up; rents are going up; childcare costs are going up; fuel costs are going up; rail fares are going up. And with empty shelves in too many shops, restaurants closing because of meat shortages and now refrigerant shortages putting Christmas at risk, it is not just that people can afford less; there is also less to afford.
The people of Britain face an extraordinary squeeze on their living standards this winter—not simply by chance, but because of the choices made by Conservative Governments this year, last year and in the 10 years before. It is not some tragic, unforeseeable series of unhappy accidents that brought us here today. It is a string of choices that this Government have made, sometimes in the face of evidence, sometimes against advice, sometimes through a dogmatic refusal to try, and sometimes simply through a lazy and complacent failure to take the hard decisions that government involves. Time and again, through the pandemic and the long years before it, the Government have left issues to fester  rather than taking action to address them, and then rushed at the last moment, only to find that it is too late and the damage is done.
I said at the beginning that incomes are going down, prices are going up, taxes are up, rents are up, childcare costs are up, fuel costs are up and rail fares are up. Let me take each one in turn.
Ten months ago, the Chancellor set out his policy of a public sector pay freeze. Like so much of his policy making, it was a triumph of short-term accountancy over rational economics. Public sector workers—council staff cleaning our parks in lockdown, police officers on the frontline, teaching assistants doing everything they can to give our children the best possible start in life—are not somehow separate from the rest of the economy. They buy food from the same shops as their neighbours working for private firms. Their children go to the same schools as private sector workers. They shop on the same high streets. They visit the same pubs and cafés. Taking money from their pockets while the recovery is so fragile—and it is so fragile—is taking money from our shops, our high streets, our economy. It is pulling demand out of our economy at the worst possible moment.
But the Government have not been content with clobbering those who did so much to keep our country running during the pandemic. In just a few weeks’ time, they are putting their hands in pockets once again: the pockets of the millions of families in our country—40% of them in working households, doing everything the Government have asked of them—for whom universal credit is what keeps them out of poverty. Again, let us be clear: many of the people being clobbered by this hit are the heroes whose bravery in the face of a then little understood disease kept this country running through lockdown after lockdown.
The Government are taking £20 each week from every family who receive universal credit. Government Members may choose to forget what that means. In the years ahead, their voters will remember the choices that they made. They will have heard from their own constituents, as I have heard, the growing worry and anger of the people they represent—the genuine sense of surprise that any Government could do this, mixed with a lasting fury that the Government really are doing this. Twenty pounds each week is not simply a number. It is school shoes, a gas bill, dinner on the table, and decent meals for the children.

Ellie Reeves: Thirty-seven per cent. of children in Lewisham are growing up in poverty. That is the stark reality of the cost of living crisis. Rather than addressing the issue, the Government are cutting those people’s universal credit and putting up their taxes. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not the way to treat hard-working families and their children? Should not the Government keep the £20 uplift, cancel the cut and think again about the tax rises?

Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is frankly indefensible. We knew that poverty was already beginning to rise before the pandemic even hit, and we know the impact that the cut to universal credit will have on family and household budgets, and on child poverty.
It is bad enough to be taking money out of people’s pockets as the recovery falters, but as price after price goes up for working people, this is unforgivable—because prices are up, and they are up sharply. Madam Deputy Speaker,
“August saw the largest rise in annual inflation month on month since the series was introduced almost a quarter of a century ago.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the Office for National Statistics. Alongside the most recent GDP figures, that is a powerful signal of how fragile our recovery remains.
Rising food prices have been driving upward pressure on the inflation rate, but this week, of course, it is energy prices that are the focus of our attention. That rise is taking money out of household budgets directly, but it will also be taking money out indirectly. Higher prices for energy mean higher prices for industry, and that means higher prices for goods. Already factories are being shuttered by higher prices and already that is driving further problems, such as knocking out the carbon dioxide supplies that keep meat fresh along our supply chains.
Ministers are always keen to blame other people, the weather or bad luck, and to claim that all of Europe has the same problems. That is not good enough and the public know it. To assert that other Governments have faults is not to excuse our own. What we are seeing and what we have seen over the last decade is a chronic failure to take responsibility, and it is hard-working families and struggling businesses who will pay the price.

Jack Dromey: On Saturday, I met a care worker on Erdington high street who was close to tears. “I’ve got two kids, Jack”, she said, “I’m on universal credit. I can’t work any longer hours. Now I’m facing a £1,000 a year cut and a tax increase. Why? I worked so hard throughout the dreadful covid crisis to care for the desperate, sometimes the dying. Why are they doing this? I’ve worked so hard over so many years. I feel that they just do not begin to understand people like me and the pain that I will endure at the next stages.” Is it not the simple reality that the Government seem to be utterly oblivious to the consequences of their actions for the poorest in our country?

Bridget Phillipson: Like my hon. Friend, I have heard from care workers and many others in my constituency about the anger that they feel. The average care worker is set to lose more than £1,000 in tax rises and universal credit cuts. Of course, the Government’s much trumpeted so-called plan for social care will do absolutely nothing to help the very care workers my hon. Friend describes.
Let us remember the exact timing of the soaring energy prices: exactly as the cut in universal credit bites. It is about choices. The Government choose not to protect working people. We would choose differently.

Stephen Flynn: The hon. Member is making a number of incredibly important points in an articulate fashion. However, would she not agree that much of what she has covered up to this point is also a consequence of Brexit? Will she therefore condemn the fact that the Government took us out of the European Union during the middle of a pandemic?

Bridget Phillipson: I will shortly come to a section of my speech that deals with the extensive problems that we face as a result of the Government’s Brexit deal; I will say a little bit more at that point.
Resolution Foundation analysis published yesterday shows that four in 10 households on universal credit face a 13% rise in their energy bills in the same month that their universal credit is cut by £20 a week. Earlier this month, we heard a lot of Government Members selectively quoting the analysis of the Resolution Foundation. I hope that they have been paying a little more attention this week, and will be reading that report with the same degree of careful attention.
This crisis may be sudden, but the causes are long standing: dependence on imports; a lack of energy security; inadequate emphasis on storage; a decade of decisions deferred and dodged. This is a crisis made in Downing Street that was caused by a decade of complacency. Gas stockpiles are at their lowest level for 10 years. In 2019, the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—who then chaired the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee—wrote to the Government about the impact of closing the Rough storage facility, which provided about 75% of Britain’s natural gas storage capacity. She wrote about gas security and the need for supply resilience. “All is well” was the tenor of the response she received, even though the key report on which Ministers relied did not include any explicit analysis of consumer price impacts. And yet here we are today.
This month, connectivity to the continent for electricity imports is down. It is often high praise to be able to say that something is really on fire, but rather less so when it is the main electricity cable to France, which went up in flames earlier this month and will not be back online until March. As the pandemic showed so powerfully, when crises arise we discover that our country is not prepared, and that only one thing has to go wrong and everything is at risk. The resilience that should be there has long since been stripped out for illusory short-term savings.
Incomes are heading down and prices are up, but, more than that, taxes are already up and planned to go up further. Last November, the Chancellor all but forced councils to put up council tax further to pay for the rapidly rising cost of social care—a challenge the Conservatives did nothing to tackle in 11 years in power. In March, he set out his plans to freeze income tax thresholds, taking a higher chunk of working people’s incomes each year. This month he set out his new tax on working people and their employers, providing £19 in every extra £20 by taxing the earnings of working people and the success of small businesses. As we head towards another Budget, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have repeatedly refused to rule out yet another unfair tax rise on working people. Time and again this Chancellor reaches to take money from the pockets of working people and their employers rather than looking across the system and ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders, who can afford to contribute more, do contribute more.
Incomes are heading down, prices are up, taxes are rising, and what is more, rents are up too. According to the property website Zoopla, private rental prices across the UK increased by 5% in the 12 months to the end of July, adding almost £500 a year to the average tenant’s  bill—the biggest jump since its index began in 2008. That might be welcome news for those who have a portfolio of properties and make their living from renting to others, but for working people these numbers are an index not of success but of a decade of Government failure to get a grip on the housing issues of this country.
Incomes are going down, prices are going up, taxes are rising, rents are rising, and, what is more, the cost of childcare is going up too. Labour Members have long warned that a decade of Conservative neglect and the impact of the pandemic could force thousands of early years providers to shut their doors for ever, and it is now clear that those fears are being realised.

Tulip Siddiq: A recent report by Pregnant Then Screwed showed that nine in 10 working families believe that the cost of childcare is severely impacting on their living standards. This is not surprising considering that childcare costs have been rising three times as quickly as wages in the past decade. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government urgently need to put in targeted support for these working families, right now, rather than cruelly withdrawing the universal credit uplift?

Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I pay credit to her for all the work that she has been doing to highlight these issues and the impact on families and children, and the much bigger economic impact when we do not get our childcare system right in this country.
Three thousand childcare providers have closed since the beginning of 2021 alone, denying families access to the childcare that parents need and denying children access to the early education that sets them up for life. Why is that? One major reason, as the Early Years Alliance has highlighted, is that information released through freedom of information requests makes it clear that Ministers have been knowingly underfunding early years providers, driving up costs while driving down quality. Childcare should be a vital part of our national infrastructure that should help our whole economy to grow and to recover. Yet, as my hon. Friend points out, Britain has some of the highest childcare costs in the developed world. Childcare must be affordable and accessible to families. If more people can work, our collective output will be greater. It is right for children, it is right for families, and it is right for our economy.
Incomes are going down, prices are going up, taxes are rising, rents are up, the cost of childcare is up, and petrol and diesel are more expensive again too. I represent a seat where there are no passenger rail services. If people live far from their jobs, they drive to work or get the bus. Fuel prices feed fast enough into the squeeze on living standards, and last week petrol was over 135p a litre. It is more than £10 more expensive to fill up the average tank than it was when the spending review was agreed in November. That makes an enormous difference to families when every single penny counts.
Incomes are down, prices are up, taxes are rising, rents are up, the cost of childcare is up, fuel is up, and rail fares are set to rise too. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) has set out the next steps we expect in the Government’s hammering of working people. With rail prices tied to July RPI inflation, and with inflation as high as it is, the cost of  season tickets will rocket by almost 5% for long-suffering rail users next year—the biggest single increase in a decade. Again, it is not just the leap now but the decade of complacency before that tells the full story. The average commuter faces paying almost £3,300 a year for their season ticket—50% more than when the Conservatives came to power in 2010. Average fares have risen nearly three times faster than wages, and they are on course to rise again.
It is not just that families can afford less on food, energy, rent, childcare, travelling and commuting but that there is less to afford. Restaurants have closed. Shelves are empty. Shortages are real, and biting not just on families and their weekly shop but on our supply chains for industries too. What lies behind that? Not enough HGV drivers; long queues at our ports; more paperwork at the border; no agreement on food, animal and plant health standards when we left the EU; shortages of refrigerant, putting meat supply chains at risk: on issue after issue the Government were warned and warned again.
It is only three months since Ministers told the industry that concerns over HGV shortages were “crying wolf”. Last Christmas the roads around many ports were clogged for days. I meet businesses that have had to scale back ambitions for global expansion because it is not even worth their while sending goods to Northern Ireland any more. Again, these issues were not just foreseeable; they were avoidable. They were foreseen; they could have been avoided.
People are having less money to spend; having to spend more of what little they have paying more on tax, transport, fuel, rent and childcare; and having less in the shops than they can buy. There is a word for that: impoverishment. More and more people are being pushed into poverty. It is the policy of this Government to stand by and watch, and it will be the policy of the next Labour Government to turn it around.

Margaret Hodge: I have listened very carefully to my hon. Friend’s really excellent exposition of a whole raft of issues that have challenged living standards, and what is interesting is that not one Government Member has got up to challenge any of the assertions that she has made. Does she agree that that demonstrates that they have nothing to say and that the slogans they use to try to describe their actions belie the truth of the increased division and poverty that they are creating?

Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who did so much in government to tackle issues of poverty and of child poverty in early years, in particular.
Conservative Members will have heard the same from their constituents as I have heard from mine, which is that life is getting tougher and they just cannot understand why, in the face of rising cost pressures, the Government are putting up their taxes, cutting the support that is available and making life harder. My constituents simply cannot understand why the Government are prepared to stand by and allow that to happen.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. You are making the case for why you do not agree with the Government’s position, but I have been listening very carefully to hear what your position is. You have criticised  the removal of the uplift in universal, but no Labour politician on the news or interviewed by the press has committed to keep it if you were to be elected.

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Lady really must stop using the word “you”.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I did not mean to, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make is that there is no plan from the Opposition. They are not giving any plan on what they would do instead; they simply criticise. They simply say we must spend more and tax less, but how does the hon. Lady propose to do such a thing?

Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. The single biggest difference that all of us could make right now would be to cancel the cut to universal credit. That would make the biggest difference to her constituents and to mine, who are facing the single biggest cut to social security since the inception of the welfare state. That is not a choice that a Labour Government would be taking in the aftermath of a pandemic.

Dr Caroline Johnson: The hon. Lady says that she would not wish to remove the temporary uplift, which we had always planned to be temporary throughout the pandemic. Does that mean that she is making the commitment that a Labour Government would reinstate that £20?

Bridget Phillipson: We would not be cutting it in the first place. We would replace universal credit with a better and fairer system that supports people into work. If the hon. Member wants to have a discussion about semantics, I suggest she has a chat with her constituents and sees how she gets on, arguing about the distinction between a temporary uplift and a cut. It is more than £1,000 a year from families’ budgets—that is what really matters.

Miriam Cates: The hon. Lady has made it clear that Labour wants to keep the temporary uplift. However, given that Labour does not support increasing national insurance, which is a very broad-based tax, how does it propose to pay for a permanent £6 billion a year increase in public spending? How would she pay for a blanket extension of £20 a week for every single universal credit claimant—it is not targeted to families or those with children in particular—in a way that is fair and does not involve raising taxes?

Bridget Phillipson: First, it is worth considering why the increase to universal credit was put in place. It was because, during the pandemic, the Government had to recognise that universal credit had been set at an inadequate level on which families might survive. On the hon. Lady’s wider point, I have a long list of places where we could find some money, if she is interested: the 1.9 million pieces of personal protective equipment, worth £2.8 billion, procured by the Government that were useless; the stamp duty holiday that was a £1 billion-giveaway to landlords and second homeowners—I could be mistaken, but I do not recall her objecting to that—and the hundreds of millions of pounds about to be wasted on  the Prime Minister’s vanity yacht. That is before we get to the Test and Trace system that the National Audit Office said had not worked properly and had had a “minimal impact” on transmissions, literally wasting billions. This is about choices. There is always money for the Government’s projects, their friends and their people, yet when it comes to dealing with some of the poorest families in our community—those who have got us through the pandemic—I am afraid they are told that there is nothing for them.

Aaron Bell: rose—

Bridget Phillipson: I will make a little more progress but will happily take another intervention in due course. Having gone from no interventions to a flurry of them, I should probably press on.
The scar of poverty is not just about not having material goods, a roof, warm clothes and warm food. It is about a lack of freedom, having nothing to spend on yourself, having choice exercised for you—either by others or by necessity—and finding your voice and your own choice squeezed out. That is what the Government’s changes do, but it does not need to be like that.
Labour has a clear plan for how we would secure a better future for our country and steer a path for our economy in the months ahead. We would not be pretending that a national insurance rise without a plan is the way to fix the NHS, we would not be cutting universal credit in just a few weeks’ time, hitting working families hard, and we would not have spent 18 long months handing out huge amounts of taxpayers’ money through outsourcing and crony contracts while hitting working people for tax again and again. We would not be telling hauliers that they were crying wolf. We would be taking action day and night with employers and trade unions to fix the supply chain disruption that is leading to higher prices and fewer goods. We would not have sat back for the last decade as rent, childcare and rail fares soared.

Alex Cunningham: When I wander down Stockton high street or through Billingham town centre, I can see the signs of poverty everywhere in faces that are tired, faces that are anxious and faces that look older than their years. Eventually, poverty kills. The decision to leave thousands of my constituents in this situation is a political one. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we are one of the richest nations in the world, it is time that the Tories’ choices changed for the better?

Bridget Phillipson: Yes, absolutely. These are political choices—who we seek to prioritise, what we do from Government and what matters most to us all.

Aaron Bell: When the hon. Lady’s boss, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), was appointed as shadow Chancellor, she said that not only would all Labour’s policies be fully costed but she would explain how they would be paid for. They need to be paid for on an ongoing basis. It is no use going over incidents from the last 18 months and saying that that would fund the extension to UC forever, that tax credit uplifts would be made permanent and that legacy benefit claimants would also get them, as well as turning the advances we have had into grants, reducing the taper rate and scrapping the benefit cap and the two-child limit. Those are popular policies, but how much would all of that cost and how  would Labour pay for it on an ongoing basis? The hon. Lady cannot deny the fiscal reality that we are in a difficult situation because of all the money that the Government have spent on protecting jobs.

Bridget Phillipson: The difficulty with the Government’s approach is that they like to pretend that theirs is the only way to do it, with the only option being to hike national insurance on workers and businesses when our recovery is far from clear. Labour would not be putting up national insurance at this point with the recovery far from secure. We have set out in lots of detail the different options available. Just yesterday, my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor set out further changes that we would make to allow the tax system to become fairer and more progressive. We could say a lot more. It should be shared more evenly across the incomes and across the generations and not through the Government’s approach of hammering working people and their families.
Labour will make more in Britain by giving more public contracts to British companies big and small. We will build a prosperous and resilient economy where every corner of our country can offer decent jobs; where ours is the best country to grow up in and the best country to grow old in. We will use stretching social, environmental and labour clauses in Government contracts to raise standards and to spend and make more in Britain. We will focus on bringing the jobs of the future to Britain by investing in reshoring jobs just as we invest in foreign direct investment. By helping every business access the expertise and support that it needs, we will build a high-skill, high-wage economy, and we will take seriously the challenges that we face outside the EU, fixing the gaping holes in the deal that the Government negotiated.
Let us focus on what the Government can do right now. Earlier this month, the Government felt they just could not wait for next month’s Budget to announce their plan to clobber working people’s incomes through an increase in national insurance, after all that this country has been through. After a pandemic that again and again showed the British people pulling together at their generous, innovative, dedicated best, the Government’s reward was a tax rise on workers and struggling businesses rushed through in less than a week. There is nothing to stop Ministers taking the same decisive action, with the same urgency, to protect the living standards of millions of people. There is nothing to stop them tackling poverty as the scar that it is. I urge the Government to change direction not at their conference, not in October, not at the Budget and not next year but now, as the nights grow cold, the bills mount up and the money runs out. There is no time to spare. The time for action is now.

Simon Clarke: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“welcomes the £400 billion package of support the Government has put in place to protect jobs, incomes and livelihoods throughout this covid-19 pandemic, including a temporary cut to VAT, generous cash grants for businesses, a business rates holiday, and the furlough scheme which protected 11 million people at its peak; notes the launching of the Plan For Jobs to help people back into work and gain the right skills to succeed in the jobs of tomorrow through schemes such as Kickstart for young people, Restart for the long-term unemployed, the Lifetime Skills Guarantee and  additional funding for apprenticeships, traineeships and work coaches; further notes the measures taken by the Government to keep costs down for working people, such as introducing and increasing the National Living Wage in 2016 so that a full-time worker is £4,000 a year better off than before, doubling personal tax thresholds giving individuals an extra £1,200 per year, protecting local taxpayers from excessive council tax increases, introducing an energy price cap which protects 15 million households by around £100 a year, and freezing fuel duty for 11 consecutive years which has saved drivers £1,600 compared to 2010; and believes that this plan is working, as evidenced by unemployment forecast to be 2 million lower than previously expected, job vacancies at record highs, household incomes protected, consumer confidence back to pre-covid-19 pandemic levels, and GDP recovering rapidly, with the IMF forecasting the UK to have the highest growth in the G7 this year.”.
It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box and to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). I thank her for her kind words on my appointment. It is great that the north-east has two representatives in the debate, and I am delighted that the north-east economy is in robust shape, contrary to what we just heard.
In the last 18 months, safeguarding working people’s finances has been the Government’s defining mission, and we have succeeded in that task. Just today, the OECD economic outlook says that it expects the UK to see the fastest growth in the G7 both this year and next. The IMF has described the UK’s policy response as “aggressive” and as one of the
“best examples of co-ordinated action globally”,
helping to mitigate the damage wreaked by the pandemic, and
“holding down unemployment and insolvencies.”

Catherine West: The Chief Secretary begins his speech by talking about growth, which everyone in the Chamber would like to see, but what impact is there on struggling businesses from the clobbering increase in national insurance? That will have an impact on not just individuals but employers and the workplace.

Simon Clarke: We are clear that the right thing to do as we emerge from the pandemic, in which we have spent £400 billion on providing a comprehensive response, is ensure that our NHS is ready to deal with the backlog of cases that has inevitably arisen as well as providing a long-term fix for social care in a broad-based solution, bringing together a progressive tax rise in which the wealthiest pay more and business plays a fair role. I am confident that that is the right thing to do at this time.
Let me remind the House once more of the sheer scale of what this Government have been doing and of our support for the economy. The £400 billion I referenced a moment ago is spending that has been devoted to safeguarding jobs and incomes the length and breadth of the UK. It is spending that has given millions of people financial certainty through a very difficult 18 months.
The furlough scheme has protected 11.6 million jobs—that is equivalent to a third of the entire workforce—and it has paid out £68.5 billion to employers. The self-employment income support scheme has provided £27 billion to almost 3 million people. Businesses have been kept afloat thanks to loan schemes worth £79 billion, in addition to cash grants, VAT cuts and business rates relief, while the most vulnerable have been supported by a temporary uplift to welfare payments. HM Treasury’s  own distributional analysis shows that our interventions have supported the poorest working households most as a proportion of income. That list is far from exhaustive, but it shows how the Government have met an extraordinary crisis with an extraordinary package of measures.

Kim Johnson: In your constituency of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Can I just stop the hon. Lady? She must not use the word “your”, but say “in the Minister’s constituency”.

Kim Johnson: In the Minister’s constituency of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, the child poverty rate is 24.7%, smashing the national average of 19.1%, and up nearly 10% over the past six years. Can the Minister tell us exactly how he intends to justify his own Government’s decisions to hit the pockets of the most vulnerable families and disadvantaged people he represents?

Simon Clarke: I am incredibly proud to be part of the extraordinary transformation of Teesside’s economy, which is taking incredible shape under the work of our Mayor, Ben Houchen. Of course, that was reflected in the fact that the Tees Valley voted by 73% to re-elect our Conservative Mayor just this May. Why was that? It happened because of jobs and growth, and hope and pride in place—all the things that this Government are committed to delivering, and all the things that a Conservative Government are doing after years in which Labour neglected areas such as Teesside and left us with no plan, no options and no future.
Peak unemployment is now forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility as being substantially lower than initially expected. All the evidence now points to a rebounding labour market. Just last week, the Office for National Statistics reported that vacancies are at a record high, while the headline unemployment rate has fallen for seven consecutive months and now stands at 4.6%.

Kirsty Blackman: I am a bit concerned that the Minister has not actually read the motion on the Order Paper. This is about people who are in work. I absolutely agree that people have been kept in work as a result of the schemes that are being scrapped—that is the case—but the thing is that if people are not being paid the living wage and are not being paid enough money to actually live on, they are going to continue to be in poverty no matter whether or not they are in work.

Simon Clarke: I can assure the hon. Lady that I have read the motion closely, which is of course why I am celebrating the fact that the ONS estimates that underlying regular wage growth is between 3.6% and 5.1%. It is why I am so proud that we are the Government who introduced the national living wage, which has of course meant more money in the pockets of working people. So this is exactly about bearing down on the cost of living and about supporting families throughout a really difficult time. That is what we have managed to do and what we will continue to do.

John Cryer: The vast majority of people among my constituents who have written to me about the cut in universal credit are in work, some of them doing two or three jobs, yet many of them are going to be pushed into poverty by the cut the Minister is defending now.

Simon Clarke: The hon. Gentleman needs to bear it in mind that we are of course dealing here with a product, in universal credit, that has a number of different components. The change to which he is alluding affects the standard allowance, but the majority of households on universal credit of course receive many additional elements—for example, 58% receive additional support for housing costs and 38% receive the child element—and many households on UC will also have access to additional sources of income, such as child benefit. This comes before we come to all the things we have built into the system over recent years to make universal credit more generous. That includes, for example, the £1,000-a-year increase to the work allowance, which was announced in 2018 and is worth £630 to working parents and people with disabilities, and of course we have changed the taper rate so people get to keep more of the money they earn as their earnings increase. This is a very carefully calibrated system, and let us not forget that this is far better, frankly, than the legacy programme we inherited from the last Labour Government, which of course, as we know, did not incentivise work, did not properly support people and was a failure, so I am afraid I will not take lessons on universal credit from the hon. Gentleman.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Simon Clarke: I want to make progress because it is important that we reflect on the employment situation in the United Kingdom. Our joblessness rate is now lower than that of the United States, lower than that of Canada and lower than those of France, Italy and Spain. People have been coming off the furlough scheme very rapidly now, and the numbers are down to 5.1 million in January to 1.6 million at the end of July, while almost half of those people still on the scheme, lest we forget, are already working through flexible furlough. The number of people claiming self-employment grants has fallen significantly, too. But that is not all: broader economic growth has exceeded expectations as restrictions have been lifted.

Miriam Cates: My right hon. Friend refers to the furlough scheme, which has of course been a phenomenally successful scheme. It has been credited with preventing mass unemployment and saving the job market. Does he not agree that Opposition cries that we are clobbering working people absolutely do not stack up when we consider the furlough scheme?

Simon Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for her point, and this is absolutely right. The furlough scheme has been absolutely essential to supporting the UK throughout this very difficult period. It has been an historic success, and we only need to consider how serious the employment situation would have been had we failed to intervene and failed to show the decisive leadership that this Government have shown.

Alex Cunningham: rose—

Jack Dromey: rose—

Simon Clarke: I give way to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham).

Alex Cunningham: As a fellow Tees Member of Parliament, the Minister will be aware that at the height, just a few weeks ago, there were 12,000 more unemployed people across the Tees Valley than there were in March last year. How does he reconcile that with talking up the Tees Valley employment situation?

Simon Clarke: I do so quite readily when I look at the extraordinary potential of our local economy. We have all the new jobs coming in at the Teesworks site, the former Redcar steelworks site. We have the hope and potential of green industry, which the hon. Member champions, as I do, with all the jobs in carbon capture, utilisation and storage as well as hydrogen. There is the new GE Renewable Energy factory, which will employ 2,500 people. Its construction starts incredibly soon, and it will be fully operational by 2023. Those are the reasons for hope and optimism. Of course, I will never apologise for talking up Teesside, just as we should never apologise for talking up the UK economy. We have done an extraordinary thing in this country: we have got through the pandemic—we have weathered the storm—and now we can move on to the recovery.

Jack Dromey: Three out of the 10 most deprived constituencies in England are in Birmingham and 42% of children in Birmingham are growing up in poverty, yet the Government are hitting Birmingham hard with the £1,000 a year cut to universal credit and the national insurance rise on top of the cost of living going up and soaring energy costs, with supermarket costs up, childcare costs up and rents up. Can I ask the right hon. Member this question: have the Government carried out any impact assessment of the consequences of their actions on Brummies, not least because the simple bleak reality is that tens of thousands face a tough Christmas and a bleak new year?

Simon Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which basically re-summarised the speech we heard from the shadow Minister. I can confirm that HMT’s distributional analysis has shown that, as a proportion of income, our interventions have supported the poorest working households the most. Of course I recognise the challenges—I represent a constituency that has many challenges—but the number of children in absolute poverty, to which he alluded a moment ago, is lower than it was when Labour left office in 2009-10, both before and after housing costs are considered. These are incredibly important achievements, and we should never lose sight of them. In short, we took decisive action, and that action has worked.
It is clear that the world of September 2021 is very different from that of March 2020. The success of our vaccine roll-out means that most restrictions have now been lifted and we are seeing the benefits of our approach. These new circumstances therefore require a new response. We of course believe that the best anti-poverty strategy is a jobs strategy, and the best way to help vulnerable people is to provide them with the opportunities that they need for well-paid work.

Aaron Bell: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He is right about the importance of jobs, and not just well-paid jobs but high skilled jobs. Can he say something about how our plan for jobs is delivering people with skills? We have a limited amount of money to spend and it is better to invest that in people’s skills than endlessly into welfare.

Simon Clarke: I absolutely agree: it is very important that we invest in skills. The plan for jobs is not just about getting people into work or keeping them in work; it is about making sure they grow their skills during their working lives, which is why we have a focus on more skills for school leavers and generous apprenticeship hiring incentives. We are also tripling the number of traineeships for 16 to 24-year-olds, and we have the pioneering lifetime skills guarantee. These are all the sorts of things that will make a difference in Staffordshire as they will across the rest of the UK, and we should be incredibly proud of that.

Alan Brown: On the previous intervention about there being a limited amount of money that can only go so far, did the £1.6 billion allocated for a nil rate stamp duty on houses worth up to £500,000 help the poorest, the richest, or a combination of the richest and the housebuilders’ profits?

Simon Clarke: The hon. Gentleman asks us to apologise for keeping the housing market moving in the teeth of the pandemic and I make absolutely no apology for that; it was absolutely the right thing to do to make sure we did not see a collapse of that market.
It is important to recognise that supplying, protecting and creating employment opportunities is the right way forward both economically and politically for our country. That is why we have made a deliberate choice to invest in our plan for jobs, which we launched over a year ago to create work opportunities and assist workers to develop the right skills for the future.
Our plan is helping young people—a group disproportionately affected by the pandemic—through the £2 billion kickstart scheme. At lunch, I was talking to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), about the impact of these programmes on young people, creating and fully funding hundreds of thousands of jobs for those at risk of long-term unemployment. I am proud that so far over 63,000 young people have had the chance to begin a kickstart job, with the numbers growing by more than 2,000 every week. Our plan will support more than 1 million unemployed people, many of whom are aged over 50, helping them find work through our three-year-long £2.9 billion restart programme, and providing jobseekers with the personalised, intensive support that will make a real difference to their prospects.

Katherine Fletcher: On retraining opportunities, may I highlight the lifetime skills guarantee as well? If someone has a job and thinks they can do something better, we can give them £2,000 or £3,000 to help them retrain. That is huge for people in South Ribble who want to go and do something exciting.

Simon Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. For the first time, any adult without a level 3 qualification will be fully funded by the Government to access three courses  worth £3,600 per person. There are 11 million adults across this country without level 3 qualifications; this policy is directly targeted to support them.
We have invested £2.3 billion to hire and retain work coaches, doubling the number to 27,000, a feat that we have achieved in just eight months, and we are spending over £200 million on providing unemployed people with tailored help with CV writing, interview skills and job search advice. [Interruption.] We have doubled free childcare for working families—we can carry this on all day. This is a comprehensive solution to a very challenging series of problems. The plan for jobs is not about quick fixes; it is about creating sustainable employment so that people can be confident about being able to support themselves over the longer term.

Matt Western: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point about job applications and employment but, as we have heard, this debate is about the cost of living. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how much the average family has had to pay in increased petrol costs per year, as well as the average cost of filling up a car?

Simon Clarke: This Government have frozen fuel duty for 11 years, so we do not need to take any lessons on that.
It is vital that we keep bearing down on the skills crunch we have been talking about. Our employment strategy is supporting people through a variety of means to gain the knowledge, attributes and qualifications to find work in high-value sectors. Insofar as we achieve that, we will be achieving a much more sustainable, robust economy for the future. Our employment strategy is supporting the finances of people up and down the country, helping them back into work, and helping them earn more and succeed in the jobs of tomorrow.
Meanwhile, Labour offers absolutely no plan to tackle the challenges that the country faces. There is no plan to take the tough decisions on covid; the amounts of money to be raised that are talked about are a fraction of those required to support the demands they are making of the Exchequer. There is no plan to create the high-skilled, high-wage economy, no plan—they voted against it last week—to tackle the NHS backlogs. While we wait for the Opposition to reveal how they would do this, we are taking action.
In April we took definitive action, increasing the national living wage by 2.2% to £8.91 an hour, an increase worth more than £345 a year to a full-time worker on the NLW, and at the same time we extended the NLW to those aged 23 and over. Last year we took action to tackle rent costs by boosting the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile of market rates, and we are keeping cash levels at those higher rates going forward. That will cost more than £950 million this year and has meant that more than 1.5 million households benefited from an additional £600 last year compared with before the crisis. We have protected people from excessive council tax increases and given councils £670 million this year to provide families with help with their bills.

Paula Barker: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Government plans for social care reform will force local authorities to increase council tax?

Simon Clarke: We have always been clear, and it has long been the practice, that a proportion of social care bills are met through council tax, and that is the right thing to do. We are saying that, additionally, we need a credible solution to properly fund social care in the long term, so that people can have the dignity in their old age that they deserve. This is a complex and challenging area of policy. While we have stood up and said that we will do the difficult thing and actually increase taxes so that there is enough money for the system not to fall over, Labour simply plays politics with the issue. Voting against what was a progressive, broad-based tax increase to properly fund adult social care was an irresponsible choice, and in their hearts Labour Members must know it.
The new health and social care levy is a £12 billion a year injection into the NHS and social care that will benefit people of all ages and backgrounds. The decision to raise taxes was tough—of course it was; we believe in a low-tax economy—but it was the responsible thing to do given the impact of covid on the country’s finances. Most importantly, that decision was fair: the levy is progressive because those earning more will pay more, and businesses will share the burden.

Margaret Hodge: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. The point is not whether extra money needs to be raised to fund the NHS or indeed social care; the point is how it is to be raised. National insurance and council tax are regressive, not progressive, taxes, but there are alternatives such as reform of national insurance, looking at assets as well as income, or looking at regional differences. There is a whole raft of options that the Minister and the Government could have considered; why did they not do so? Why have they chosen a regressive system for raising additional money?

Simon Clarke: We did look at this, and Treasury analysis showed that lower-income households will be large net beneficiaries from the package announced by the Prime Minister, with the poorest households gaining the most as a proportion of income. This Government are unafraid to make tough choices in order to safeguard the nation’s finances. The difficult decisions that we have made to increase corporation tax rates and temporarily reduce overseas development assistance—which I know will be considered the right decision by my constituents on Teesside—are clear illustrations of our approach on this front.
As a final point, I remind Members that while we have taken extensive action to safeguard workers’ finances during the pandemic, our record of achievement stretches much further back. Indeed, according to official statistics there were 1 million fewer workless households at the end of 2019 than in 2010, while income inequality was lower going into the pandemic than in that year as well. In fact, over the past 11 years successive Conservative Governments have striven to keep the cost of living in check for millions of households.
Let me give the House some examples. Fuel duty has been frozen for 11 years in a row, cumulatively saving the average driver £1,600. The energy price cap has protected 15 million households in the two years since its launch. We have nearly doubled the personal allowance over the last decade, making it the highest basic personal tax allowance of all countries in the G20 and one of the  most generous internationally. In combination, our changes to the national living wage, personal allowance and national insurance currently leave a full-time national living wage employee £5,400 better off in cash terms compared with 2010. I am proud of that, and I think all Conservative Members should be. These measures are just part of a record of achievement that has made a real and lasting difference to people’s lives.

Tulip Siddiq: The Minister is talking about everything that he is proud of. Is he proud that the childcare system in this country is the third most expensive in the world, and that parents are making the choice between paying childcare costs or paying their rent or mortgage? Does he think that removing the universal credit uplift will help working parents? I notice that he has not said anything about childcare, so would he care to elaborate?

Simon Clarke: I would be delighted to. This Government have doubled childcare for working families to 30 hours a week. That is worth £5,000 a year. For working families claiming universal credit, up to 85% of eligible childcare costs are met. That is the right thing to do. We want to keep women in the workforce, and we want to make sure that it is easy for families to adjust to whatever arrangements best suit them to support their children as they grow up.
A plan for jobs, incomes supported, the economy rebounding—this Government have safeguarded the finances of millions of people and, in doing so, set our country on the path to a strong recovery. Working people right across this country are seeing the benefit. We are not just promising a brighter tomorrow; we are delivering positive, tangible change today. Let me stress that we have no plans to alter our course. We will remain relentless in our mission to provide workers in every part of this country with the better prospects, greater security and increased opportunities that they so rightly deserve.

Alison Thewliss: This could not be a more timely debate. My constituents and people across the country are looking with great apprehension at the winter to come, fearful about how they will make ends meet. I welcome the Minister to his post, and I appreciate what he said about the economic support offered, but that is not unique to this Government or any other. Governments around the world have sought to support their citizens through this pandemic, and many have done so more compassionately and more competently than those sitting across from us on the Tory Benches.
Many have done that from a better starting point, too, without public services stripped bare from a decade of austerity and a welfare state that punishes people for their circumstances, and without the worst inequality in north-west Europe. And none of them has embarked upon a project so thoroughly deficient and self-defeating as Brexit, which has left businesses carrying higher costs, shelves empty, and skilled people—our neighbours and friends—leaving this island in their droves because this UK Tory Government have made them feel so unwelcome. Scotland voted for none of this.
To the here and now, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have food shortages and price rises, inflation increasing, cuts to universal credit and tax credits, the end of the  pensions triple lock, a regressive national insurance hike, the end of furlough and the self-employment income support scheme—for people who were lucky enough to be eligible for that scheme rather than excluded from it—and now the prospect of spiralling energy bills as we head into the depths of winter.

Alex Cunningham: The hon. Member has just mentioned energy prices. I do not know whether she saw that Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation said:
“The autumn is looking like a cost of living crunch.”
He added that four in 10 households
“will see their energy bills rise by 13% (£153 a year) at exactly the same time as their income falls by 5% (£1000 a year).”
He also mentioned inflation, which is expected to get to 4%. What does she think that will mean for the poorest people in our society?

Alison Thewliss: The hon. Member is perfectly right to point that out and to refer to the words of Torsten Bell. He came to the Treasury Committee to give evidence about some of the things that we are facing in the months ahead. Many constituents will just not be able to cope with this. They will become more indebted, they will struggle to get by, and they will find it difficult to get back out of that debt, get on with their lives and be productive members of society. This is a significant crisis, which this Government are ignoring and making worse by their inaction.
This Tory Government have already created the perfect storm: a cost-of-living crisis atop an already weak and stagnant economy. Citizens Advice Scotland found that more than 1.4 million people in Scotland ran out of money before payday at least once in the last year. Sarah Arnold, senior economist at the New Economics Foundation, found that 2.5 million working families on low incomes will lose £1,290 a year because of the double whammy of the cut to universal credit and the increase in national insurance contributions. That is utterly unjustifiable.
It may not mean much to those on the Government Benches, but that is an enormous amount of money to many people across this country, which cannot be made up through a few hours’ work, as the Work and Pensions Secretary appears to believe. It is the difference between just getting by and not coping at all, between being able to put food on the table or relying on the food bank, between keeping the lights and the heating on or disconnecting from the power supply.
I am an honorary vice-president of Energy Action Scotland—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—which has found that one in five households with a prepayment meter regularly self-disconnects because they simply cannot afford to top it up. Of those households, 88% contain a child or someone with health issues. Those on prepayment meters will struggle the very most in the months ahead—they always do—and this UK Government do absolutely nothing to support them. The stress of watching the meter eat what little money has been put in it is an experience that I am sure few on the Government Benches will understand, but I have had constituents shivering, living in one room under blankets and duvets, because no matter how much money they put in that meter, they cannot keep their home warm.
There is a significant impact on older people, carers and people with disabilities, whom this UK Tory Government have often completely ignored. That is a group whose energy bills are higher. My constituent Rob McDowall is among many already worrying about how to keep warm this winter. Like Citizens Advice Scotland, he is advising people to seek assistance and advice right now. While I fully support attempts to seek advice, this UK Tory Government should take their responsibilities seriously too.
Energy costs will increase more in Scotland due to our geography. This is a life and death issue. Living in a cold home causes illness, and Energy Action Scotland has found that there are around 2,000 excess deaths in Scotland each winter as a result. That is a scandal in energy-rich Scotland, but it is a reflection of how broken the energy system is—a system entirely reserved to Westminster. Around 25% of energy bills is the cost of UK Government levies and policy choices, as well as VAT. That disproportionately hits those on low and middle incomes. The Treasury must do something now to alleviate that burden. That is in its hands.

Alan Brown: Is it not the case that even the schemes that are meant to help the poorest, such as the warm home discount, the eco scheme that helps with some energy-efficiency measures, are paid for by other energy users, so they are actually regressive? Those who can least afford their energy bills are paying to try to support other people, so it is a circular argument that goes nowhere. Is it not also outrageous that in the highlands of Scotland, people pay up to £400 more a year as a levy on their electricity while exporting energy to the rest of the UK?

Alison Thewliss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point that out. That is an unfairness in the system that the Government have shown no compulsion to tackle at all. We must look at that unfairness, particularly for those in the most rural parts of Scotland who find it hardest to afford their energy bills.
I seek an assurance from the Government that those who have money sitting in their energy accounts just now will see that swiftly transferred over to any new company, as people tend to pay in more over the summer to meet their bills in the winter. In his statement yesterday, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy could not guarantee that the warm home discount would be paid to customers transferring. I also want to know what assistance will be possible for those transferred customers who are living with existing arrears. It is an uncertain and very worrying time for them all.
As an aside, my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) have been pursuing the ridiculous transmission charging regime, which makes it more expensive for us to connect the clean, green energy produced on our doorstep in Scotland to the national grid. It feels as if Ministers could not be less interested in fixing that disproportionate scandal.
We all know households that already struggle to pay their energy bills. Households relying on electricity for their energy needs pay £600 more on average than households with both gas and electricity. In the areas  that are off the gas grid completely, particularly those relying on liquefied petroleum gas, those costs can be even higher.
In addition to food banks, fuel banks are springing up around the country to meet this need, but given the soaring fuel prices we face, it will just not be enough. The price of food in the shops is also going up. Inflation stood at 3.2% in August, which I understand is the highest month-on-month increase since records began in 1997. Some have predicted that it might reach 4.5% by November. The Bank of England target is 2%. That means that goods in the shops will get ever more expensive. There is the prospect, too, of the national insurance hike being passed on to consumers. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has suggested that companies may try to cover the increase on employers’ costs by passing it on to consumers, so as well as being a tax on jobs, this is a tax at the till.
In addition to having an impact on people’s food bills and their ability to feed themselves, this cost increase is having an impact on charities that are already trying their best to support those in need. Audrey Flannagan at the Glasgow South East food bank in my constituency tells me that food donations to it are down 30%, at a time when she is planning for an influx of people due to the cuts to universal credit. I say “cuts” because, for many who claimed benefits for the first time during the pandemic, they have known nothing else. Audrey tells me that people she has spoken to have been horrified to receive a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions informing them that their money is getting cut, because for them it is not an uplift; it is quite simply what they have been managing on for months now.
The Minister talked about living wages, but his living wage is not a real living wage, as set by the Living Wage Foundation; it is a pretendy living wage. It is not enough for people to live on, and it is not available to everyone. As he knows well, age discrimination is baked into the living wage. Younger people, who face the same bills at the checkout and on their energy and rent, are getting short changed by this Government through their pretendy living wage.
The impact on families of this cut has been well repeated, but I would like to mention the impact on single people. Twenty pounds is around a third of a single person’s income on universal credit. Glasgow South East food bank has seen a significant drop in single people coming for emergency food assistance in this past year, from 601 people in January to March 2020, to just 151 people in the same period this year. Audrey Flannagan believes that the additional £86 per month—UC is paid monthly—was enough to make a difference to those people. It pays for the gas and electric, it puts food on the table, and without that £86 a month, many will return to her service in just a few weeks’ time.
Many people have been in touch with me, as they have with my colleagues, to protest the cut to universal credit, but I want to read this email from John, because he puts it so well. He says:
“I wanted to write you a short note to tell you that cutting back on the U.C. uplift is going to have a very hard consequence on me. I was laid off at the start of the pandemic when the company I was working for closed down. With the uplift I’m receiving about £300 to last me nearly 5 weeks! The government talks like this was a favour done us! Firstly, I and all those on Universal Credit are not responsible for a pandemic! Secondly, the pandemic is not  over yet! There could be further strains and further lockdowns! What then for people like me! Also benefits did not go up before the uplift for years and years, while prices and the cost of living have. This therefore is actually a benefit cut! It will be the difference for me between just getting by and crushing poverty!”
That choice will be faced by people up and down this country. Every single person in this House has a responsibility to think of each and every one of them when we vote on this issue, because it is the difference between just getting by and crushing poverty, as my constituent John pointed out.
There are global issues, of course, driving the cost-of-living crisis, but the political choices being made by this UK Tory Government are making it worse. Yet again, they have chosen to balance the books on the backs of the poor—to repeat the mistakes of the previous crash by choosing austerity over stimulus. My constituents did not choose this. The people of Scotland did not choose this. Even many Tory voters did not choose this, as those on the Government Benches break promise after promise to their own supporters. The first duty of Government is to protect its people, and this UK Tory Government have failed repeatedly on all counts. There is no Union dividend, only a Union dead end. Scotland needs the full powers of a normal independent country, to look after all of our people and seek a fairer, just and more prosperous recovery for everyone.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the maiden speech of Jill Mortimer. I remind people that they cannot intervene.

Jill Mortimer: Mr Speaker, first may I say what a privilege it is for me to have you back in the Chair? Thank you for calling me to make my maiden speech today, which I do as the first Conservative Member of Parliament for Hartlepool since the constituency’s creation almost 60 years ago. This is perhaps surprising, considering that the people of Hartlepool have traditionally shared so much in common with the modern Conservative party. Both recognise the importance of hard work, thrift and individual responsibility, and both share a profound love of family, community and country. For too long, the elected representatives of Hartlepool have dismissed the concerns of my constituents and taken their vote for granted, but I promise the people of Hartlepool that I will do all I can in my capacity as their new parliamentary representative to ensure that their voice is not only heard in this place but valued.
It is, after all, the people of Hartlepool that make my job the privilege that it is. I am immensely grateful that, in my new role, I have had the opportunity of getting to know some of the most hospitable and compassionate communities in the country. From Hart in the north to Seaton in the south, the unique kindness of my constituents never ceases to move me. They have made me feel so welcome in my new constituency, and for that I am truly grateful. Regardless of how my constituents voted in the by-election earlier this year, it is an honour to represent them all, and I would like to thank them here today for placing their trust in me.
Throughout history, the success of our United Kingdom has depended on the back-breaking work and unwavering determination of Hartlepudlians. Their engagement in the Hartlepool region’s maritime, rail and steel industries has repeatedly helped to secure Britain’s status as a true  economic powerhouse. On 16 November 1914, the unshakable devotion of Hartlepudlians to their country was demonstrated in no uncertain terms when the first casualty of the first world war on British soil occurred on our Headland. It was here that we built ships that allowed global Britain to grow and trade around the world, and it is here now, at our nuclear power station, where we power 2 million homes across our region—and I am already fighting for a new reactor for Hartlepool beyond the current plans for decommissioning.
The history of Hartlepool is one of hard graft, bravery, sacrifice and love of country. I intend to fight tooth and nail in this place to give my constituents both the recognition and prosperity they deserve. Following Britain’s departure from the European Union, Hartlepool will once again be at the forefront of ensuring the success of this great country. The Government’s plans for a Teesside freeport, which will include the ports of Hartlepool and Able Seaton in my constituency, will give Hartlepudlians the necessary tools to drive not only regional growth but national growth. I would like to pay special thanks to all my Teesside MP colleagues and Ben Houchen, the Tees Valley Mayor, who has fought so tirelessly to ensure that the Teesside freeport becomes a success for the economy of Hartlepool. I look forward to continuing my work with them to deliver for my constituents.
I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessors Mike Hill, Iain Wright, Peter Mandelson and the late Edward Leadbitter for their service to the people of Hartlepool. Although Lord Mandelson and I agree on very few things, and I, as a proud northern lass, know the difference between mushy peas and guacamole, he was committed to injecting new life into Hartlepool, as demonstrated by the redevelopment of Victoria Harbour. I am proud to pick up the baton of regeneration for my constituency, and the grant of £25 million that Hartlepool recently secured as a result of the Government’s towns fund will help several redevelopment projects.
The towns fund showcases the Government’s commitment both to building back better after the pandemic and to levelling up the country. Further investment in Hartlepool will be crucial to ensuring that the priorities of Hartlepudlians are implemented, for example: regenerating our high streets and local communities; creating good quality and sustainable jobs; helping local businesses to deliver more apprenticeships; and putting more police officers on our streets. I also look forward to working with the Health Secretary and his Ministers to discuss how important healthcare services can be returned to Hartlepool.
As our country emerges from the pandemic, our communities, strengthened and emboldened by their fight against the virus, have much to be optimistic about. The Government’s ambitious plans to build back better, which will put Britain’s communities at the forefront of the national recovery, promise countless opportunities for constituencies like mine. It is time to demonstrate  to places like Hartlepool, not with words but with concrete action, that their votes will never be taken for granted by a one nation Conservative Government. I, for one, will dedicate my career to repaying the trust of  the people of Hartlepool, and this great but long forgotten jewel of the north will once again gloriously adorn our nation.

Carolyn Harris: It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer). It is also wonderful to see her colleagues gathered around her to show her such support—support I know she will be sharing with the hard-working people of Hartlepool who may be suffering from the Government’s fiscal policies.
I am not sure if the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), who has now left his place, does the weekly shop, but it is something I try to do myself every weekend. Deliveries would be easier, but I find out far more in the aisle of Morrisons about what is happening in my constituency and about people’s problems than I ever do in casework surgery. At the moment, by far the biggest issue the people of Swansea East are facing is the steep rise in the cost of living, while at the same time the money coming in is being hit hard from every angle. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard, “Have you seen the price of this?” or “I can’t afford to buy that anymore”. Some will blame the pandemic and others will blame Brexit for the reasons behind the rising costs and reduced incomes, but either way, it boils down to the same thing: working-class communities are struggling more than ever before, and this Government need to hold up their hands and take responsibility for that.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about what it is actually like for families who struggle every week to stay afloat. It was in the summer of 2016 that I became aware of the scale of the problem for families in Swansea East. Just a few days into the school holidays, the local food bank called, asking if my office could put out an appeal for donations as its shelves were almost empty—empty because parents were struggling to replace the free school meals that had kept their children fed during term time. From this, our first kids summer lunch club was born. Every year, my team makes sandwiches and delivers them to local free holiday clubs. Year on year, this has evolved and grown, and now every school holiday we try to do something to help families in the constituency who just cannot make money stretch far enough.

Sarah Champion: I thank my hon. Friend for the very hands-on approach she has taken to feeding her families, but does she share my pain and sadness that food banks and social supermarkets have become the norm, not the exception, in the last nine years alone?

Carolyn Harris: I certainly do. I see that week in, week out when I visit my communities: there is not one that does not have a food bank facility, albeit an ad hoc version.
This year, we added to the lunch club, delivering a Morrisons bag full of breakfast provisions for a family for a week—so we were providing breakfast and lunch. At least once a month, we distribute what some might consider to be luxury items, such as soap, shampoo, sanitary towels and deodorant, courtesy of the wonderful Beauty Banks charity. We deliver them to a community organisation for families who, if they cannot afford  to feed themselves, certainly cannot afford personal hygiene products.
By far our biggest project was last December’s “Everyone Deserves a Christmas” campaign. It is the fourth year we have done it, and last year was like no other. We were inundated with requests and recommendations about families who needed help. Thanks to support from the city’s Swans football club, the Ospreys rugby team, Swansea Council, local businesses, local community groups and people including the incredible Welsh football star Gareth Bale, who personally paid for 300 Christmas hampers, we ended up making and delivering 1,300 hampers. On Christmas eve, we cooked more than 100 dinners and delivered them to people who would not have had a Christmas otherwise.
The highlight for me was when one of the drivers returned from making his deliveries to thank me for letting him be involved in the scheme. He said that he was so touched by the excitement of a child who had opened up the hamper box and rejoiced that it was the best present he had ever had, because among the festive food were a tin of Quality Street and half a dozen Christmas crackers. That family had not had a tin of sweets before, because £4 on offer was too much to spend on something non-essential.
With summer now behind us, we are once again planning our Christmas hamper campaign, but with the scrapping of the £20 universal credit uplift, the steep increase in energy prices and the ongoing fallout from business closures, job losses and reduced incomes for those on furlough, 2021 is likely to have hit even more families than 2020. Thousands more people will be sitting at home right now worrying about how they will get through the next week or the next month, let alone buy Christmas presents and other extras. I worry for the families in my constituency, in my city, across Wales and across the UK. The past 18 months have been cruel to so many, but the Government clawing back more money from those who can least afford it is crueller still.
My team—and Gareth Bale, I hope, if he is listening—will help again. We will happily keep on fundraising, packing boxes and putting smiles on faces in Swansea East with a box of sweets in a Christmas hamper. It is an honour to do so, but anyone in this House who makes that necessary because they think that those families do not need the extra £20 universal credit payment, or that they can spend their already stretched incomes on huge hikes in energy bills, should think of those kids and be utterly ashamed of their actions. When the Minister refers to universal credit as a product, when in reality it is a lifeline, I fear that he sees claimants more as a commodity than as individuals.

Danny Kruger: May I say what a pleasure it was to hear the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the new Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer)? It was absolutely tremendous. I was lifted off my feet by its sheer patriotism. It was so inspiring to hear her love for her place, her attachment to it and her commitment to Hartlepool. It makes me proud of the day I spent campaigning for her—well, maybe it was more like an afternoon, but it was enough. We are all Hartlepudlians after that speech, so I am very pleased that she has joined us.
The British economy is booming. We have the fastest growth in the G7, this year and next. Unemployment is falling across the country, wages are up and the strongest   recovery is for the youngest people in our economy. I am very proud of what the Government are doing to invest in people—2,500 young people are joining the kickstart programme every week, 1 million people in long-term employment are being helped with £2,000 restart grants, there is £3,000 for every new apprentice, and the Government are doubling the number of work coaches—and to help them take the benefit of our high-wage economy. However, I recognise that there is a problem.
This is an appropriate debate for us to have at a time when inflation is creeping into the economy and the cost of living is a concern. It is creeping in partly because of the exuberance of the global economy as countries come out of lockdown and the huge pent-up demand for raw materials. Covid has obviously caused disruption to global supply chains and to logistics. We are a group of islands, and we are vulnerable to shocks in international trade; indeed, I think we are rather too vulnerable to such shocks. We are too reliant on imports, especially of energy, which, of course, is salient this week. Beyond that, however, are some profound structural issues in our economy that I think we need to address, on the supply side. There are distortions in the market.
Let us think about the four most essential aspects of life, the things that we all spend our money on first: housing, food, water and energy, such as heating. Each of those markets is distorted and they have different effects, in that some are overpriced and others underpriced. Housing is overpriced—more specifically, the land under houses is overpriced—and as a result the proportion of household spending that goes on housing has doubled over the last 50 years. Food costs are going up, and there is real concern about that, but it is happening after years of artificially low prices. As the proportion of household spending that goes on housing has doubled, the proportion spent on food has halved over the same period, so something is up. Of course it would be great if the quality of the food were just as good or if the real costs of its production were reflected in the price, but they are not. We have an obesity crisis, and we have polluted rivers and a polluted environment.
The same story could be told about our water systems. We have artificially cheap water in this country, because the real cost of water is being borne by the environment, by all of us in our taxes and by public services, resulting in bad health. As for energy, we are all now very familiar with the fact that prices are rising because of our dependence on foreign supply.
Those different distortions in our markets have different effects on prices, but what all the markets have in common is a lack of effective competition. We have a small number of very large companies—house builders, supermarkets, water companies, energy companies—all of which act to distort markets and have negative effects, and ultimately to pass on high prices. Even if in some cases the price at the till is low, for instance as a result of subsidies, the overall effect of these cartels is to increase prices for all of us.
I say yes to the Government’s demand-side reforms, and congratulate them on a high-wage economy with rises in wages and investment in skills. I look forward to the spending review, and hope that we will see more support for the worst-off families. Fundamentally, however, we need more plural markets and more local production   in homes, food and energy, which will empower local communities, help local economies, and keep down the cost of living.

Chris Evans: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for missing the opening minutes of the debate, and thank you for allowing me to speak this afternoon.
It was a pleasure to hear from the new hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer). I expect she will know that the colourful football manager Brian Clough started off at Hartlepool United, and I am sure that those on the Government Benches are hoping that she does not turn out to be as controversial, as outspoken or as rude as he proved to be over the course of his career.
As we enjoy the last of the summer, our thoughts will soon turn to winter and the challenges of fuel poverty. The rise in rail fares, council tax increases and rising household energy bills are of concern to hard-pressed families, but what is rarely mentioned is the extortionate price of water. Access to safe drinking water is one of the most basic human needs. Water should not be expensive, and it should not be causing environmental damage to our local areas. This appears to be a bare-minimum service, but I am sad to say that in Wales, the co-operative Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water is failing to meet even that standard. It is shameful that families are being let down on something as vital as their water bills. The Consumer Council for Water has found that the unemployed, call centre workers and carers are hardest hit by high water bills, simply because they do not know that help is available, and water companies have been found wanting when it comes to publicising such schemes.
Wales has some of the most impoverished communities in the UK. In 2020, median gross weekly earnings in Wales were the third lowest amongst the 12 UK countries and English regions. Water ought to be affordable for all, yet Welsh Water’s forecast average bill in 2021-22 is the third highest of all the companies in England and Wales. To put this in perspective, Severn Trent Water, which covers most of Gloucestershire, Bristol and Birmingham, has among the lowest bills in the country, so simply living across the border means enjoying lower prices. I am sure that Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water’s public affairs department will be on the phone to me and sending me emails and press releases telling me that it is different in that it has a higher geographical area and a coastline, but it seems amazing to me that the City of London, where some of the richest people live, benefits from the lowest prices from Thames Water. Why is that the case? How can Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, a company that frequently touts its not-for-profit status, not be ashamed of the fact that it is forcing families with household incomes far below the average to pay some of the largest water bills in the country? This is a company that is failing its communities.
For some, the extortionate prices are just laughable, given that their water supply is not even reliable. One village in Denbighshire has been plagued by supply issues this year. Residents have experienced extremely poor water pressure and a complete halt in water supply on several occasions. Their water went off completely in July for the ninth time in the year. That is more than once a month. How can the company possibly justify  charging some of the highest prices and then fail to even deliver the water? To add insult to injury, Welsh Water has confirmed that work to rectify the supply issues will not get under way until next May, a full six months away, and meanwhile we are facing a hard winter. That is not an isolated case. I know of many Members, from Newport to Monmouthshire, who have had problems with water supplies.
High bills and poor service are compounded by the environmental damage that Welsh Water has contributed to in our Welsh rivers. Wales is fortunate enough to have some exceptionally stunning waterways and countryside, but they are being threatened by the irresponsible actions of Welsh Water. At a time when we are trying to attract people to come to Wales for tourism and holidays, they are being faced with polluted rivers. It is not good enough. I was horrified to watch a “Panorama” programme earlier this year that found that Welsh Water had been illegally dumping raw sewage into rivers. This is extremely damaging for the ecosystems of the rivers, it is unsanitary and it is a dangerous breach of the company’s permits. It ruins the rivers for the many dog walkers, wild swimmers and paddleboarders who wish to enjoy the beauty of the Welsh countryside. It threatens the biodiversity of the rivers, puts wildlife at risk and results in large-scale ecological damage. Above all, it risks the health of the most vulnerable customers in the country, and still nothing is being done.
There is no defence for this. It is not a one-off mistake or a small-scale problem. Last year, sewage was dumped more than 100,000 times across 2,000 water treatment works and sewer overflows across the Welsh Water network. That is a shockingly high rate, and Welsh Water must be held accountable for the damage that this has caused. Welsh Water was found by the “Panorama” investigation to be one of the worst offenders across England and Wales. According to its data, three of its treatment works were in breach of their permits. The Aberbaiden plant had illegally discharged untreated sewage on 12 consecutive days in December into the River Usk. That sewage gets into the system, and our children will drink that water. Our elderly will drink that water. This is a scandal of epic proportions and it needs to be called out. The Usk is a protected river, and a special area of conservation. For Welsh Water to be dumping untreated sewage into an environmentally protected river is absolutely abhorrent and shows flagrant disrespect for the communities it operates in.
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water says that it is run
“solely for the benefit of customers”,
yet it has some of the most expensive water in England and Wales, which it does not always deliver to the households it claims to serve anyway. Meanwhile it is consistently breaching its permits by dumping untreated sewage into the rivers. How can this possibly be the action of a company acting solely for the benefit of customers? Surely it would be more beneficial to them if Welsh Water ensured that its water bills were more affordable. I am a huge advocate for co-operatives, and I sit here proudly as a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, but this one is failing. Welsh Water is failing in its environmental commitments and it is failing its customers, and it must be held to account.
The Public Accounts Committee held an inquiry on the water industry in 2015, and Ofwat has launched investigations. I implore those on the Treasury Bench to look into the actions of Welsh Water and make sure it starts delivering for its customers before we see an environmental scandal on a larger scale.

James Daly: What a joy it was to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) give a truly brilliant speech. It is somewhat apt that the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke about Brian Clough, who was passionate about his local community. Brian Clough gave hope and aspiration to the communities he represented and, having spent time with my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool in her constituency, I know that is exactly what she does. This is the first time Hartlepool has had such political leadership for a long, long time.
This is an important debate, and the first line of the Opposition motion says
“this House is concerned about the negative impact of Government policy on the finances of working people”.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), who is no longer in her place, framed that argument by saying it is based on choices made by the Government, my Government, this year and last year.
I want to test that thesis and, rather than stating things in bland generalities, I will make specific reference to my town of Bury and the impact of the choices that my Government have made over the past two years and how they have benefited working people.
Over the past two years, this Government have given nearly £80 million in busines support grants to businesses in my area, ensuring that people have jobs, that businesses are able to continue and that wages can be maintained at their previous level. That is down to the choices made by this Government. We have protected jobs, which seems to have been completely ignored by some Opposition Members.
What else have this Government done for the people of Bury over the past 18 months? In the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22 so far, Bury Metropolitan Borough Council has received £1.8 million, on top of the other support that is open to people in my community, to support vulnerable families and specifically to help with fuel, energy and water bills. That is on top of the £1.8 million that the council received from the hardship relief fund, the majority of which has been given to families of working age, who have received £150 credit set against council tax bills. That is part of a total package of £118 million, separate from furlough and the Government-backed schemes such as the loan schemes, which has ensured that businesses have not only been able to maintain employment and pay wages but have been able to thrive and expand.
This Government and every Conservative Member should be extremely proud of that record and of the investment this Government have made in communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool mentioned the £25 million going into her town, and it means regeneration. It is creating employment and changing lives. This Government are making these decisions in every part of the United Kingdom every week, and they are changing lives.

Alex Cunningham: I also congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), on her maiden speech. I am sorry that her Tees valley colleagues have now abandoned her, because I wanted to share some child poverty figures with them. Since 2015, the number of children in poverty has gone up by 1,800 in Stockton South, by 2,000 in Hartlepool and by 1,900 in each of Darlington, Redcar and Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Will the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) address the children in the Tees valley and persuade Tees valley MPs to vote against the universal credit cut?

James Daly: From recollection, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool will tell me if I am wrong, Ben Houchen got 74% of the vote. Conservative MPs have been elected in Labour areas of the Tees valley because we give hope and we have a plan. This Government’s plan for jobs is working, whereas Labour has offered nothing to the Tees valley over the past decades. The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and other Members in that area are putting forward plans that are changing lives, for which they should each be extremely proud.
I come to the second part of the debate. In Bury, we have seen unprecedented support during an incredibly difficult period. How do I, as a Member of Parliament, feel about the Government policy? How do I look at what we should be doing to change people’s lives, give hope and inspiration, and make sure that people can make the best of themselves, having the best career, best-paid job and best future? I have heard no arguments —no plan, definitely—from any Opposition Member in respect of how that is going to happen; I have heard no hope, no vision, no anything for children in Bury or in the Tees Valley about how their lives are going to be transformed by a Labour party. I have heard bland generalities.
The shadow Minister said that the Labour party would create a high-skills, high-wage economy, but they are going to be too late, because this Government are doing it already. We are investing billions of pounds in skills uptraining, not only to give young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds the best chance to have a highly paid, skilled job, but to regenerate our areas. In an area such as Bury, we have to have that skillset so that we can bring in high-tech manufacturing and make sure that those jobs are closer to our communities, so that people, including young people in Bury, do not have to go to Manchester or London to have a highly-paid job.
This Government have a plan that is delivering; the plan for jobs is delivering, and we can see the kickstart figures. We are creating, through youth hubs, kickstart and all the other programmes that have been outlined, a set of policies and programmes. Bury College is part of a bid for institute of technology status for Greater Manchester. What does that mean? It means colleges in Greater Manchester are working with the University of Salford to create the means by which high-skilled, high-worth employment is going to be on the doorstep for people, with the skills training that is being delivered. I had the privilege of going to Bury College with the Minister two weeks ago; the T-levels that have been introduced by this Government are inspiring aspiring people and changing lives, making people’s futures brighter—we cannot overlook that.
We have a transformative Government. Every decision made is regarding levelling up. Everything we decide to do is done to transform opportunity. Sadly, the Labour party is not interested in that and certainly does not have a plan to do it. So I congratulate this Government. There are challenges. We are dealing with a £400 billion pandemic, for which there is no panacea, but this Government have done what they have needed to do to protect people’s livelihoods and interests, and to support families throughout this period, with unprecedented financial support. We are now on to the next stage. The plan for jobs is working; it is hope, it is aspiration and it is changing futures and lives in communities such as Bury. I support the Government wholeheartedly on that vision for our country.

Gill Furniss: I would like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition for securing this important debate. I also wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer)—I would if she were in her place—on her maiden speech.
Many of my constituents in Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough are facing a winter of immense financial difficulty, particularly given the cruel £20 a week cut to universal credit that Ministers are pushing through, against the wishes of this House; I welcome this opportunity to bring to light their hardship. After a decade of Tory mismanagement, poverty and inequality run rampant in our country. Council budgets have been cut to within an inch of their lives, leaving local services in tatters. Schools struggle to give kids the education they need and deserve. Emergency services are stretched beyond any reasonable expectation. People have been left to fend for themselves. The same families who have borne the brunt of austerity are set to face a winter in which they choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table.
In Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, 15,000 families are in receipt of universal credit or working tax credit—that is three in every five families. The planned cut will take £15 million from families that are already struggling to feed themselves. It will bring more hardship for those who are already struggling. It will come in October, just as the furlough scheme ends and the energy price cap is set to rise, which could see prices rise by up to £153 per year. Research by Sheffield citizens advice service has found that 28% of households in which someone received universal credit are behind on their energy bills. That is seven times the rate for those who do not receive that benefit.
Cutting universal credit now shows just how out of touch the Government are with the realities of working people’s lives. Some Government Members like to believe that poverty is a thing of the past—a product of Victorian Britain—but in today’s Tory Britain, the cut will affect 6.2 million families. On top of all that, the Government are now planning to raise taxes on millions of hard-working families. The rise in national insurance is the biggest tax rise on families for 50 years. Already, constituents have been contacting me because they do not know how they are going to be able to afford basic necessities after they are hit by the double whammy of a cut to their universal credit and a rise in their tax bill.
I wish to speak briefly about one of my constituents, whose name is Shaun. Shaun is a young man with serious mental health needs. His single person’s universal credit barely stretches to cover the costs of caring for his four-year-old son. What is Shaun supposed to do when he finds himself with £1,000 less each year? What choices will he be forced to make to get through each month? What will he and his son have to give up to get through each day? Shaun will not get answers to those questions, because Ministers will not look Shaun in the eye and listen to how the cut will plunge him into debt or how he worries about the impact it will have on his mental health.
Let us call these policies what they are: cruel. Labour knows it, the public know it, and dozens of charities and campaign groups know it. I would like to think that, deep down, even some Government Members know it. The cut to universal credit in particular is so cruel that the charity Human Rights Watch has said it would breach the UK’s international human rights obligations.
The Government’s policies are regressive and will hit working families the hardest. They lay bare the reality that the levelling-up agenda is no more than empty rhetoric and a new name slapped on a Government building. We cannot level up by taking money out of the pockets of those who need it the most. Not only that, but their policies are a sucker punch to businesses up and down the country which, after barely staying afloat during covid, will see their revenue streams run dry as consumer spending falls because of the fiscal squeeze. I urge the Government to listen sincerely to the concerns of Members from all parties. I hope they will see sense and reverse these decisions before yet more families are pushed into a never-ending spiral of poverty.

Miriam Cates: It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), and it was a delight to hear the maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) earlier. As a fellow MP in a post-industrial area, I absolutely recognise what my hon. Friend said about the importance of levelling up being about not only materially restoring to northern areas the opportunities that have been given to the south, but honouring those areas for their contribution to the wealth of this nation over hundreds of years.
Throughout my whole adult life, inflation rates and interest rates have been remarkably stable. That is not normal historically, and when I speak to constituents or more senior Members and hear about what life was like in the ’70s and for many decades before, I realise that the inflation that is a threat now is very different from the stability we have enjoyed in previous years. It is a concern.
My constituents are worried: they are worried about energy prices, and we have heard much about that over recent days; they are worried about commodity and construction prices; and they are worried about shortages. I have just heard from a major importer in my constituency who is concerned about the cost of shipping. The cost of a shipping container from China has risen from  around $2,000 a container last November to getting on for $20,000 now. That will have a huge inflationary pressure, given how much we import.
It is also the case, though, that wages are rising and our job market is buoyant. Our plan for jobs is working. We have heard much about the furlough scheme, which has rescued our economy from the fate of mass unemployment. We have a record number of job vacancies—more than 1 million—and businesses in my constituency of Penistone and Stockbridge are hiring people of all ages for all different types of jobs.
We have heard Brexit being blamed for the situation that we find ourselves in, and there is no doubt that Brexit has caused changes in our economy. I draw the attention of hon. Members to an article by Matthew Lynn in this week’s Spectator entitled “Who’s afraid of rising wages?” It starts:
“During the Brexit referendum, Stuart Rose, the former boss of Marks & Spencer, and chair of the Remain campaign claimed that if Britain left the EU, wages ‘will go up’. This was, he added, in a rare moment of candour, ‘not necessarily a good thing’. But the idea that salaries might rise was exactly the reason that a great many people voted for Brexit.”
Why should we be afraid of rising wages? It is what the Opposition have been calling for. More competition for employees will lead to rising wages, and we are seeing that: Costa, for example, is paying over 5% more. On average, wages have risen 8% over the past three months, and, from April, this Government raised the national living wage to £8.91.
We must remember that we are still in economic shock. We are coming out of an extraordinary period of time, but things will settle. In fact, the International Monetary Fund has forecast that the UK will have the highest growth in the G7 this year, so while there are concerns around inflation and the cost of living, which must be addressed, there is also a good chance that we will have a fairer jobs market at the end of this.

Deidre Brock: Will the hon. Lady share with us the solution to the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which is not adequate for farmers to be able to employ enough people to pick crops in the field and to avoid the situation that we are seeing in Scotland where many fields of crops are just being left to rot because of the lack of workers?

Miriam Cates: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. While, overall, on a macro level, having more jobs available for British workers will push wages up, it is of course the case that certain sectors will need specific interventions to save them, and I would support any such measures.
While there are concerns like the one the hon. Lady has raised, and concerns in the wider economy, our plan for jobs is working and the future is optimistic. None the less, there are some long-term structural issues with the cost of living and threats to living standards that must be addressed, and this is the moment to do so. We must find a solution for the sake of future generations.
First, housing affordability is a key driver of problems with the cost of living. Solving the housing crisis will unlock many issues, such as generational inequality, and it will reduce the cost of living. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for  Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), has been appointed to look at this specific problem, because it is very important. Many of the serious issues that Members have raised in this House today would be much aided by a reduction in the cost of housing.
Secondly, we also need to look at fairer finance for families. Again, much has been said about the changes to universal credit, but I want to consider what we could do in our taxation system to make life fairer and cheaper for families. Unlike many countries, the UK has an individualistic tax system. We tax individuals rather than households, which means that we do not take into account the number of dependants in a particular house, and that can make life very expensive for families. Some families on low and middle incomes can end up paying around 30% more tax than individuals living on their own. When we couple that with the way that benefits are clawed back as people earn more, some families can effectively face a marginal tax rate of 75%, making it very difficult for them to get out of poverty. We must recognise the importance of raising children not just for the nuclear family, but for our whole society. We need to look at how we can make it less expensive for families to exist and to raise their children.

Alison Thewliss: The hon. Member is making an interesting point about support for families. Does she agree that the UK Government’s two-child benefit cap punishes those who have a larger family and puts them in a position where they cannot work their way out of poverty?

Miriam Cates: What is far more significant is the way in which we tax individuals—potentially spreading people’s income tax allowance and things like that—rather than looking at household income; that would give families far more choice about how they spend their income and organise their lives, and make family life much more affordable.
Thirdly, we have to address the long-term affordability of our public spending commitments. The welfare state that we have today was designed 80 years ago, when life was very different. Demographics were different then. There was no paid-for childcare or paid-for social care. Most women did not work. There was a huge amount of free care and community living going on that we just do not have, or that there is not nearly as much of, today. Of course, people then also spent a far higher percentage of their life working, whereas now people spend much longer in education and much, much longer in retirement, which means that proportionally, over the course of someone’s life, they are spending far less time paying tax and paying for insurance—paying for the benefits that we all want to enjoy.
The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that public sector net debt could rise to 300% of GDP by 2070. We just cannot continue in the way that we are now. We need a reset. We need to redesign our public spending and welfare state for modern life and modern demographics. I think we have already established that we cannot tax our way out of this. Of course, we should be trying to grow our way out of it, but we also need a fundamental redesign of the welfare state and public spending.
We also need much more emphasis on community solutions and prevention. It has been an honour to be part of the early years review of my right hon. Friend  the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), whose start for life recommendations look at the importance of the first 1,001 days of a child’s life. If we get that period right, we can prevent so many problems that destroy people’s lives in the long term and which are incredibly expensive for public spending. We must spend more and invest in the early years and health prevention. About 40% of the NHS budget is spent on preventable and lifestyle diseases. We have to tackle those things if the state is going to be affordable in the long term. Of course we should innovate, use technology and look at what other countries are doing to address these issues.
We should be concerned about the cost of living. Families up and down the country are struggling, and there are families that are not able to take advantage  of opportunities in jobs and higher wages. But this Government have taken action on jobs over the last 18 months, and that is bearing fruit. As our economy is reset, we now have an important opportunity to solve some of the structural issues that we face.

Richard Holden: One thing that the Government could look at is the 2017 plan to extend pensions auto-enrolment to people who are 18-plus, rather than 22-plus, and to low-paid workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take that forward at the earliest opportunity as part of a long-term solution?

Miriam Cates: I absolutely agree. In my speech on national insurance contributions a couple of weeks ago, I made the point that the auto-enrolment scheme was a fantastic invention and that we could extend it, as my hon. Friend says, but also that we could look at using it as a model to help contribute to social care, so that people pay into it now and reap the rewards later.
We have to address some of the structural issues that I have discussed. Now is an excellent time to do that, and I would welcome the opportunity to work with Ministers and colleagues across the House to look at innovative solutions to do that.

Colleen Fletcher: I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for that very interesting analysis of what we ought to be doing now.
For households and families living on the edge, a cost of living crisis is a crisis that they simply cannot afford. To cite just one statistic, in my constituency of Coventry North East, the rate of child poverty already stands at 29%. Once the cuts to universal credit, the rise in national insurance contributions and an increase in a wide range of household bills are factored in, I am certain that the number will rise significantly. A cost of living crisis, therefore, will not just result in a short-term squeeze on family finances but will have a long-term corrosive impact on the life chances of thousands of children across the country.
Many of the people I represent in the community I grew up in work hard but in low-paid and often insecure jobs. The Government’s disregard for, or lack of understanding of, the challenges that these communities face was demonstrated recently by the Work and Pensions Secretary, who claimed that individuals facing the £20 cut to universal credit should work two more hours a week.  Yet it was soon made clear that in fact it would take about nine more hours a week to make back the £20 cut. Is the Work and Pensions Secretary seriously saying to these people that they should essentially have a six-day working week: that they should sacrifice their weekends; their family time; their time for rest and relaxation? It is all well and good saying that we need better-paid and more secure work, but in communities like Coventry North East we need Government investment and support to make it a reality. So far, despite all we have heard about levelling up, we have not seen any tangible evidence of this in Coventry.

Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend knows that these people use the same supermarkets that she and I use, and they have so much less money. She knows, as I do, about supply and demand, and if there is less food and less product around, the prices go up. I do not go to supermarkets very often, but recently, when I do, I have noticed that product is being fronted on the shelves with very little behind it, so there might only be 20 or 30 cans of beans instead of 200 because there is a food shortage in some product areas. Does she agree that the Government really need to act on employment and getting drivers in place so that we do not face these kinds of shortages?

Colleen Fletcher: I thank my hon. Friend. Unlike him, I do go shopping a lot. I spend a whole lot of my time in supermarkets, for different reasons, and I entirely agree with him. I see that around my constituency an awful lot, not just doing food shopping, I hasten to add, but other shopping as well, which I thoroughly enjoy when I have the time for it.
It becomes clearer each day that the interests of my constituents will never be served by a Tory Government who simply do not understand, or do not want to understand, the difficulties faced by my constituents. Successive tax rises have demonstrated that even though my constituents were some of the worst affected by the pandemic, in terms of their health as well as their finances, the Government have made the political decision to ensure that they will bear the bulk of the costs of this crisis and will be offered scant support if they are struggling.
I urge the Government to pause and reflect on their recent decisions and offer a better deal for people like those who live in the communities that I represent to ensure that we can get through any cost of living crises together.

Aaron Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher).
It is also a pleasure to contribute to the debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) made her maiden speech. When I went up to campaign for her in Hartlepool, I was struck by the reception that we had on the doorsteps and the faith that the people of Hartlepool put in her. That faith has been entirely justified by the tone of her speech. She stands for putting pride back into Hartlepool, exactly the same as other Members in the post-industrial areas that the Government are levelling up and addressing, like me, in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and my hon. Friend the Member  for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates). It will be good for working people that Newcastle-under-Lyme has a £23.6 million towns deal, just as Hartlepool has its towns deal funding. The Government have taken on that agenda. Let us be fair: it was originally the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) who said that we needed to do more for towns, but the Labour party decided that it did not want to listen to what people in towns have to say—people who voted for Brexit and wanted Brexit to happen—and it did not vote for her to be its leader. That is why it has been reduced to the state that it is in.
I turn to the effect of Government policy on the finances of working people. The key thing is that people should be working and the Government have been extraordinary in ensuring that people can continue working. There was a period when people had to stay at home, but now they have jobs and businesses to go back to because of the extraordinary measures taken by our extraordinary Chancellor in extraordinary times. We saved millions of jobs through furlough—more than 10,000 people in Newcastle-under-Lyme were on furlough. We saved tens of thousands of businesses through the grants and loans that we gave them, and those businesses are now recovering and hiring again. We have also protected people’s salaries through measures such as the energy cap. Yesterday, I was grateful to hear the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy say that, with the energy cap put in place by the Government, people will not have to pay much more this winter.
Above all, the Government have kept people in jobs. Unemployment peaked at 2 million fewer people than was initially feared at the start of the pandemic, which is a tribute to what we have done through the pandemic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said, jobs are now available—we have 1 million vacancies out there—and wages are rising because the era of unlimited immigration is over. We have the highest growth in the G7, and the OECD predicts that we will have the highest growth this year and next. We also have, as I said in my intervention on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, a plan for jobs that is about not just getting people into jobs but getting them into better jobs and getting them better skills in jobs. We have policies such as kickstart and restart, and we are doubling the number of work coaches. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for visiting the Newcastle-under-Lyme jobcentre with me in the summer, where he saw what our work coaches are doing to get people into jobs in north Staffordshire.
Of course, the Government also have policies for more skills, including apprenticeships and technical training. For the last two Fridays, I have been giving out awards at Newcastle College, first to those in higher education and last Friday to those in further education. The college’s apprenticeship scheme is outstanding—in fact, it was the first college to be graded “outstanding” across the board with Ofsted—and people who go there and get those technical skills will end up with much better jobs, and much better paid jobs, than they would have done without those innovations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) mentioned an Institute of Technology bid. Newcastle College also  has one in. If it gets that, that will only enhance our offer to young people in north Staffordshire and Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Alexander Stafford: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about not just creating jobs but creating high-quality jobs? This Friday, United Caps is opening a new manufacturing facility in my constituency, providing high-quality jobs on the top of the old pit site. It is doing that because of the aspiration that the Government have given the company to invest in a former pit town on a former pithead to give us the new high-quality jobs that Government Members want and Opposition Members do not.

Aaron Bell: Like my hon. Friend, I have the honour of representing a former mining area, and it is so important that we give our areas the hope, the skills, the jobs and the future they need. So much public money is coming into places such as Newcastle-under-Lyme, but in the long term we will need the private sector to sustain our economy, which we can do by using the pump-priming of the towns fund and the future high streets fund—we have got money from that—to grow our local economy to support people. We can do that by paying people higher wages, and by giving them better skills they can earn those higher wages. He is absolutely right.
The Government have a plan for jobs, but where is the Opposition’s plan? We did not hear one from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). Labour must address the fiscal reality; it cannot wish it away. We spent £400 billion in extraordinary support during the pandemic. We now have a £300 billion deficit—nearly 15% of GDP—but we were able to put that support on the table only because previous Conservative Governments accepted that we have to live within our means and get the deficit down when we can. We dealt with Labour’s deficit and we will now have to deal with the deficit that is the legacy of the pandemic.
As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—I welcome him back to his rightful place at the Dispatch Box—said, the Opposition do not seem to want to accept any of that. They voted against extra money for the NHS, which I find astonishing. They say that we should put the tax elsewhere, but they voted against our increase to corporation tax. They also voted against freezing income tax thresholds, which was not a popular decision but a necessary one in the face of the fiscal realities. They also voted against the reduction in the international aid budget. Again, we breached the manifesto on that, but in the extraordinary economic circumstances we are in, I believe it is the right thing to do.
Labour Members want more spending and they want no tax rises in the face of an unprecedented, enormous deficit. I believe that that is economically incoherent, and it takes the British people for fools. They tried that once before in the face of an enormous deficit during the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, and I have to tell them that it did not work out well for them at the next election. I am reminded by today’s news that they also took the opportunity during that Parliament to change the way they elect their leader. They are trying to do that again now, and that really did not work out well for them, so they really should be very careful what they wish for.
In conclusion, the reason why Government economic policy is working and is in the interests of working people is that it is really all about jobs. Conservative Members all believe that jobs and work are the best way out of poverty. There are more jobs, more people helped into jobs, more training within jobs, including the apprenticeships I talked about earlier—[Interruption]—with up to £3,000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) says. There is our lifetime skills guarantee for those who are in the wrong job and want to change jobs, and we have also put an end to unlimited immigration, protecting our citizens from the race to the bottom in wages that, sadly, we have seen so often. The Labour party wants us to rejoin the EU, reopen those borders and force wages back down again.
From the plan for jobs to the increase in the national living wage, I firmly believe that this Government are putting those on lower incomes at the heart of our economic policies and at the heart of our economic planning, and it will be a brighter future for all of us.

Kirsty Blackman: It is a delight to follow my Procedure Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). It is helpful because we are ideologically opposed on every single matter, so I can pretty much stand up and say exactly the opposite of what he said, and it will be grand. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to take to take you back to 1915. In 1915, my great-great-grandfather John Murray was killed when his steam herring drifter was cut in half by a British warship. My great-granny’s mother Barbra Helen Murray, who was known as Babeellen, was left to raise five girls by herself. When she was left in that situation of abject poverty, there was no Government funding to help her. She had no support from the Government to get through that very immediate crisis. Her sister stepped up and offered to take the youngest child off her hands—offered to give that child a home and pay for that child’s upbringing. Imagine having to make such a choice about whether to keep her child. Imagine being forced into that choice of whether to keep that child, whether in 1915, or in 2021 with the rape clause. Imagine having that choice. Thankfully, she chose to keep her child, and she brought up my great-grandmother.
The family were helped: they were helped by the church, their friends and their relatives. However, the reality was that people did not have a lot to spare and people did not have a lot they could give in such charitable situations, so the family really had very little money. This was despite the fact that my great-granny’s mother worked in every single job she could find. She knitted things, she sewed things and she mended things. She cleaned every building she could possibly get access to and that she could convince people to pay her for cleaning. She did not get any money at all from the Government until she turned 70, when she got 7 shillings and sixpence for her pension, which was an absolute fortune to her. She had spent 37 years working in every job she could have and in every moment she could find in insecure employment—like people are being forced to do in the current system; trying to work every single hour in multiple part-time jobs just so that they can try to put food on the table.

Alex Cunningham: The hon. Member makes me reflect on a family matter of my own. When my grandad was killed in a pit accident, my dad had his apprenticeship, and my granny went out and scrubbed floors to ensure that he completed his apprenticeship. But today we find that grandparents are looking after grandchildren—perhaps because somebody is in prison or because they have a drug problem—yet they do not get help, and even those people are going to lose this £20 of universal credit. Would you credit that?

Kirsty Blackman: Stories like this belong 100 years ago; stories like this do not belong in the 21st century. We should not have constituents who are in absolute poverty coming into our constituency offices.
This motion is about the working poor. My great-granny’s mother did not have money to buy what she saw as necessities; she obviously did not have enough money to buy food and stuff but was helped out in that, but she also could not go to church because she could not buy clothes for church. She had her working clothes but could not buy Sunday best clothes to go to church; that was her biggest regret about not having money. Nowadays, people on UC may not be able to afford internet access, which they need to get their UC, or to afford other things we see as necessities. Not many people are wanting a Sunday outfit to go to church—some are, but not that many—but they desperately need access to the most basic of services so they can get their UC and make their claims, and so that they can speak to friends and family and not be hugely isolated.
A cut of £80 a month is a huge amount. For a lot of people, £80 a month is their council tax bill, or two mobile phone bills, or—goodness knows—one pair of shoes for the kid, maybe two pairs for those who are particularly lucky and their child is going to wear something a bit cheaper. It is a huge amount of money, not pennies; it means people will have to cut back on a big, major bill when this cut is implemented. My great-granny remembered her mother crying because winter was coming and she could not afford to buy shoes for the children. That was over 100 years ago; this should not be happening today—we should not be having single parents crying because they cannot afford to buy winter shoes for their children.

Catherine West: What does the hon. Lady make of the fact that there are 23 more billionaires in The Sunday Times rich list this year?

Kirsty Blackman: I am going to come on to that, because I am thinking there is a divide across this Chamber: the constituency cases we on the Opposition Benches are seeing do not appear to be reflected in the cases being seen by those on the Government Benches, or they would not be making this cut. If they were sitting around those tables with people crying because they are living in absolute poverty and destitution, they would not be choosing to cut this £20 a week.
Some 72% of families who need food bank help have at least one parent in work. In my constituency more than four in 10 families will be hit by the UC cut. Aberdeen has been hit by a triple-whammy: the oil price crash has meant many people have been made redundant; we have seen the reduction in the reliance on oil; and we have seen both covid and Brexit. All those things are  having a significant impact on the people of Aberdeen, and particularly my constituency. We have seen massive house prices in our city, too, so people have not been able to save money, and they have not been able to get council houses because of the right to buy, which we have, thankfully, cancelled now in Scotland. They have not had the opportunity to get back on the housing ladder, and they are doing the kind of insecure work my great-granny’s mother was doing: they are cleaning hospitals and working as porters and carers. I defy anyone to tell me those people are not working hard; these are hard-working families, yet they are being slammed consistently by this Tory Government.
We are talking about absolute destitution. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), mentioned prepayment meters. I do not know how many Members have had a prepayment meter, but I lived in a flat with one when I had hardly any money. If a prepayment meter goes £20 into the red, it stops working—the electricity stops—and people do not just need a fiver to bring it back; they need to pay the full £20 to get back into the green. Many of my constituents are faced with those numbers ticking towards that negative £20 and wondering, “What on earth are we going to do about this? How are we going to pay for the electricity so our children have heat and do not freeze?” We had a guy come into my office one day. This chap was on universal credit, and he was one of those single people on universal credit who is literally destitute. That is a significant portion of single people on universal credit; they are living not just below the poverty line but below the line of destitution. This chap came into my office to say that he did not know what to do. He had not eaten in three days. His dog had not eaten in three days. He had sold every single item of furniture that he had in order to try to keep them both fed. He had sold his bed, so we managed to source a bed for this chap.
That should not be happening in 2021. We should not be having those conversations with people, yet Government Members talk about £6 billion and say, “Oh, we’ve given £80 million to this scheme” or whatever. It does not matter if they have given £80 million to that scheme; it does not make a difference. What makes a difference is ensuring that these folk have enough money to eat—enough money to feed themselves and to clothe themselves. The hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) talked about hope and aspiration. How can someone have hope and aspiration if they spend every single moment of every single day—

Jim Shannon: Worrying.

Kirsty Blackman: Worrying—exactly. Worrying and thinking about what on earth they are going to do tomorrow, and what they are going to do the next day. Half of people who go to Trussell Trust food banks are in debt to the DWP because the universal credit system is so rubbish. People are in debt because they have had to take crisis loans due to the universal credit system.
That is before we talk about the £20-a-week cut. That is absolutely a cut for people who have been going through the hardest times. Government Members can talk about the £6 billion all they like, but the reality is that the damage that this cut will cause to people—the number of hospital admissions we will see and the number of people who will die as a result of the cut—will be far more and cost far more than £6 billion.

Liz Twist: Let me start by saying that I make no apology for referring to a subject that I have talked about very often in this House and in questions—universal credit and child poverty, which are inextricably linked. I want to talk again about the serious and really disproportionate effect that ending the universal credit uplift will have on people in my constituency of Blaydon and across the north-east.
Many constituents have written to me expressing their concern about the cut—the loss of the £20. I have heard both from people who receive universal credit themselves and know what a huge difference that has made to them, and from those who are concerned about other people in their community who will be affected by the cut. There is a real and genuine concern about how people will suffer as a result of the loss of that £20.
One of the many constituents who got in touch with me, Stacey, will, after the cut, no longer be able to afford to take her child to their hospital appointments as the travel fare is too expensive, leaving her, she says, to choose between buying food and accessing healthcare. Stacey’s story highlights perfectly what we know from the data and what we hear from charities across the region. Forty-six per cent. of families with children in the north-east will be affected by the universal credit cut, and that in a region that already had the second highest level of child poverty in the country before the pandemic. The cut will leave families worse off.
Of the 20 constituencies with the highest increases in child poverty between 2014 and 2019, 17 are in the north-east. In my constituency of Blaydon, 27% of children live in poverty. That is data from before the pandemic.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady is bringing forward the very important issue of child poverty. Charities have indicated to me that child benefit is a godsend, but they also say that the benefit cap has remained the same since 2013 and that, in the same period, inflation has been 17.56%. That means that people who have been on the same wage for eight years will find that if they go to their boss and ask for a wage increase, they will lose their child benefit. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is time to address that too?

Liz Twist: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; of course, I absolutely agree with the important point he makes.
Some 7,320 households in my constituency of Blaydon, or 21%, will be affected by this cut, which represents a combined loss for low-income households in Blaydon of £146,400 a week. That is £146,400 being sucked out of the local economy each week, virtually overnight. Is that levelling up for my community? I thank the North East Child Poverty Commission for the important work it does to produce such figures, which graphically illustrate the problems we are facing.
We have talked a lot about jobs as well, because universal credit is as much an in-work benefit as it is an out-of-work benefit. Some 40% of those on universal credit are in work, many doing really important key worker jobs that did so much for our society during the last 18 months of the pandemic. This is not about people being lazy and wanting handouts. Low wages, poor-quality  jobs, zero-hours contracts—they all mean that being in work is no longer enough to be out of poverty in this country.

Jessica Morden: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. She refers to the fact that 40% of universal credit claimants are in work. Does she agree that that means that one in 14 British workers might be affected by this cut?

Liz Twist: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and share her concern about the number of people who will be affected by this cut. Being in work is not enough; we need better quality jobs, with proper conditions and adequate pay.
I want to mention the energy price cap rise and the inevitable cost rises that will follow. Many of these families will feel the impact of that. Many may be living in poorly insulated homes and may feel the need to increase the heating in their properties. We know that there are links between poor quality housing and poverty and, indeed, poor health, so the energy price cap rise will have a significant impact on those families—probably more significant than for some of us. Labour wants to keep the uplift until we can replace universal credit with a better, more compassionate social security system that properly supports those who need it.
I want to refer also to the increase in universal credit claims as a result of the pandemic. I have managed to get information from Gateshead Council showing a significant increase in council tenants across Gateshead claiming universal credit. Indeed, from April 2020 to the end of March 2021—almost exactly that whole year of the pandemic—there were 1,758 new universal credit claims. Some of those dropped off during the year—perhaps they were not eligible, or whatever—but there was still an increase of nearly 1,100 tenants claiming universal credit.
One other issue, which we have talked about often and must not forget, is the five-week wait, which leads to incredible arrears, certainly in Gateshead. By 31 March, 69% of Gateshead tenants were in arrears by an average of £666. Clearly, those arrears need to be resolved at some stage. They are a debt around the neck of those people.
I want to talk about the national insurance rise. Research from the New Statesman and the Resolution Foundation shows that people in the north-east will lose a higher proportion of their disposable income than those in the south of England due to incomes on average being lower in the north-east: people in the north-east will lose up to 25% more income than those in the south-west. When it comes to social care, people will still need to sell their home to fund their care, especially people with lower value homes. They will still face a substantial cost before the cap kicks in. Homeowners in the north-east could face care costs of up to three fifths of their assets, including the value of their home, while homeowners in London face costs of just 17% of their assets due to the difference in the value of housing. That is deeply unfair, on top of the additional contribution for many workers who, as I said, are in relatively low-paid jobs.

Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making a compelling and powerful speech about a wide range of issues affecting her region, and I commend her  speech to the whole House. I was particularly moved by the point about housing and the difficulty for many tenants. Does she agree that there is a huge need for more council houses in this country?

Liz Twist: I absolutely agree about the need for additional council housing.
The rise in national insurance will disproportionately affect younger people and those on low incomes. It is absolutely right that we need more money for the NHS and social care after years and years of cuts, but it cannot be right that it is the lowest-paid earners who pay for it. The Government’s plan will not end the crisis in social care or help to fix the backlog in the NHS.

Alex Cunningham: The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about the Conservatives not really understanding the plight of people living on universal credit. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it might be a good idea for some of them to spend a month living on the income of a person on universal credit? Not just that, however. Let us load them with a debt of £10,000 and say that they have to pay off some of that debt out of their income as well, and maybe they might understand a little bit more.

Liz Twist: I would not like to load anyone with debt, frankly, but I do wish that people would understand what it is like to live on universal credit, and not just for a week or a month, with no recourse to a cash pot in the bank on which they can draw if they run out of money. Many of us will not understand that, but it came home to me very clearly when I became a councillor and an MP just how much on the breadline some people are, with no access to credit cards or other finance. It is a really difficult life for people.
I was talking about social care. As I said, the Government’s plan will not end the crisis in social care or help to fix the backlog in the NHS. It will take money from those already struggling financially, without fixing the problems. What my constituents want to know, when we talk about social care, is what services they will be able to access. We have talked about money and the need to address that, and we have talked about caps. What we have not talked about is what the Government’s social care plan means for those of my constituents who actually receive social care, with people coming in to look after them. Will they receive a better service? Will the staff, many of whom will be caught by the universal credit cap, see decent pay and conditions, and recognition for the really important work they do? We are missing a huge piece of the jigsaw and the Government need to address that. Labour has said that there are many other ways to raise the money, including taxing the incomes of landlords, and of those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks and shares. Labour has been clear that we want those with the broadest shoulders to carry the burden.
I want to talk a little bit about the excluded, because so many of my constituents during the pandemic, including the self-employed, have found themselves facing real problems. They were excluded from any schemes that the Government brought forward and in many cases they were excluded from universal credit because of  money that they might have put away for tax, or small amounts of money. Lots of single people running dance schools or hairdressers or working from home have found it hard to get through. It is really important that we recognise the pandemic’s impact on them. I know from Zoom calls with my constituents—people who own beauty salons, people who were creative—how much they have been affected. They really have suffered.
Lastly, I pay tribute to Gateshead food bank, Gateshead Council and the many other local organisations that have picked up a lot of the slack. They are doing a great job, but for goodness’ sake, it should not be necessary in this day and age.

Jessica Morden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) on her maiden speech. She is not in her place, but it was a very good maiden speech and I look forward to joining her in many more debates in this place. Having spent a little time at by-elections, I have never quite been sure that Peter Mandelson would confuse mushy peas with guacamole, but there we go.
Thank you very much indeed for calling me today, Mr Deputy Speaker, to support Labour’s motion on behalf of all the families in Newport East who have been hit really hard over the past 20 months and who now face the perfect storm of rising costs and cuts to Government support, with their incomes down and prices rising. Instead of making positive plans to tackle the problem and to help people, Conservative Members are making it worse, as we saw last week from their manifesto-busting vote to increase national insurance contributions—we saw their actions then.
The burden of lower incomes and rising prices is falling yet again on working people who can least afford it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) said, many of the working people who are being hit yet again were the key workers we so relied on in the pandemic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said, this is very much about political choices. That is a point that we repeatedly have to ask the Government to address—this is about political choices that they are making.
Last month, I met my local citizens advice bureau in Monmouthshire. I also thank Newport CAB, which is doing an excellent job in difficult times with funding cuts—my thanks go to all those out there offering advice services, because we will really need them in the months to come. In my meeting with Monmouthshire CAB, we discussed the looming autumn crisis, the end of furlough on 30 September and the cut to universal credit, which so many hon. Members have mentioned and the impact of which we could see coming down the tracks.
The uncertainty of the pandemic has already led to a series of income shocks for many constituents who are struggling just to meet everyday bills. Whether those bills are for heating, food, transport, childcare, back-to-school costs or rent, they are pushing people into debt. The Money Advice Trust’s report “The cost of Covid” makes shocking reading: it found that 5.5 million adults are behind on their basic bills and credit payments, 12% of adults have used credit and 37% are using high-cost credit just to cover essential outgoings such as groceries and energy bills.

Alex Sobel: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Payday lenders —loan sharks, really—are charging exorbitant interest. The Government changed the regulations in 2017, but that has not helped at all. In the credit union market, which we particularly support, credit unions are absolutely at their limit because of covid, but the Government have not stepped in to support those low-cost lenders at all. It has been a boon to payday lenders, but for low-cost lenders such as credit unions, which are membership organisations, the Government have done absolutely nothing.

Jessica Morden: My hon. Friend has made an extremely valid point. I see that at first hand in my constituency, and I hope that Ministers will note what he said, take it away and actually do something about it.
People are using credit, including high-cost credit, to cover essential outgoings—spending on groceries, energy bills, and school books and stationery for children. Those on the lowest incomes are also bearing the brunt of the rising food prices that we have talked about today. I pay tribute to Raven House Trust food bank, Caldicot food bank, and all the other food banks that serve Newport East for the fantastic work that they do to support people. I also pay tribute to the community and the churches for supporting those food banks during what has been a very difficult time.

Liz Twist: During the pandemic, we have seen our community groups, our churches and others come to the forefront and help people. Without that help, would not many more people have been in real difficulties?

Jessica Morden: My hon. Friend is right. We owe a debt of gratitude to all those out there in the community—in churches and in other organisations—who have stepped up to help those who are suffering the most.
According to the BBC food price index, food prices have risen by 8.3% since January, with meat and fish up by 22% and fruit and vegetables by 14.7%. As has already been said today, the Government have done very little to address the supply chain issues which are leading to higher prices yet again. We are seeing HGV driver shortages and delays at borders and ports, and we need the Government to address those problems. As we have seen in many news reports, the costs of raw materials for many goods and services have risen as well, affecting the cost of furniture, women’s clothes, vets’ bills, second-hand cars and more. So much for the positive strategy from this Government for shaping our future post Brexit.

Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about the wide range of problems that families are facing—not only the deeply mistaken cut in universal credit and the end of the furlough scheme, but wide-ranging price rises linked to supply chain issues and the Government’s ineptitude in so many respects. All those problems are hitting ordinary people across the country very hard. Do we not face a perfect storm for many of our residents?

Jessica Morden: My hon. Friend is spot on. It is indeed a perfect storm, with all those factors coming together at the same time.
Petrol and diesel are also more expensive, costing more than they have since 2013, and the cost of buying a home has skyrocketed in Newport East. Home-Start Cymru has highlighted the huge rise in prices in Monmouthshire, and we have seen the same in Newport. That has put the opportunity to buy beyond many people, particularly our local young people trying to get on to the housing ladder. Housing insecurity has increased, with more mortgage arrears and more people pushed into renting. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South mentioned the research carried out by Zoopla, which has reported that rental prices have risen by 5% in the last 12 months, while wages have remained stagnant for many. Average rail fares are rising three times faster than wages, and are 50% higher than they were in 2010. Studies by the Office for National Statistics suggest that those who commute to work are set to experience the steepest increase in rail fares next January. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), it is all coming together in a perfect storm.
There are further problems on the horizon. This week we have seen the crisis in energy costs and soaring prices. Fuel debt is already the third most common type of debt with which people seek help. The energy price cap for October—just as the cold weather sets in, furlough payments end and the universal credit uplift is scrapped—is set at £153, higher than the warm home discount payment, which has been set at the same rate since 2014. As Martin Lewis has said on his website, that payment should be increased in the Budget, and I hope that the Ministers are listening to that too.
The CAB estimates that 2 million households are already behind in paying their energy bills. As I have mentioned the CAB, it is important to note that while demand for debt advice has gone up and up, funding for debt advice services has decreased. If the Government do nothing else as we come into the autumn, they should at least look at properly funding our debt advice services.
The cutting of the universal credit uplift will be the biggest overnight cut to social security, with 8,630 households in Newport East alone seeing their money cut by £20 a week. I know at first hand from my constituents, as many hon. Members do, how the uplift has been a lifeline for those struggling to buy essentials.

Margaret Ferrier: I have heard from One Parent Families Scotland that single parents are often overlooked and stigmatised, and that an overwhelming number of one-parent families are headed by single mothers. On top of the day-to-day worries of increased energy and food costs, they also worry about providing a happy Christmas or a fun birthday for their children, and will push themselves into debt to do so. The £20 universal credit uplift is a lifeline for single parents. Does the Member agree that it is not enough to be barely getting by, and that it is also about quality of life?

Jessica Morden: The hon. Member makes a really valid point. Added to that is the fact that single parents who are under 25 get a lower rate of universal credit because they are perhaps deemed to be living at home, which is deeply unfair. They will also be deeply hit by these cuts and changes.
We know that 40% of those who will be hit by this cut are in work. That is an inconvenient truth for Ministers, who ignore the fact that universal credit is as much an in-work benefit as an out-of-work benefit. A cut of £1,040 a year alongside the increase in national insurance contributions says everything about where this Government’s priorities lie. Action for Children has said that
“you can’t level up the country by pushing down the living standards of some of the hardest working families in the country.”
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that 300,000 more children will be pushed into poverty. Families who are just about keeping their heads above water will be plunged into poverty.
In the face of this crisis, the Government choose not to help but to make things worse, wasting huge amounts of taxpayers’ money on outsourcing and crony contracts while hitting the same group of people over and over again. I hope that Conservative Members will do better tonight than they have in previous votes. I hope that they will stand up for constituents who need them, and show that they understand what life is like for many in this country.

Wendy Chamberlain: I want to confine my remarks today to the impact on disabled people. Disabled people are being let down by this Government’s policies. Research by the Disability Benefits Consortium has found that at some point during the pandemic two thirds of disabled claimants had to go without food, heating or medication, and that almost half reported being unable to meet financial commitments such as rent and household bills. I have seen these people in my constituency office, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who made a powerful speech, has seen them too.
This is one of the direct impacts of the Government’s failure to extend the universal credit uplift to legacy benefits. The Government are now justifying their cut to universal credit on the basis that it was only meant to help with extra costs during the pandemic, but if that was the case, why did they refuse to extend it to disabled people on legacy benefits, who were disproportionately impacted by lockdown and who experienced much higher costs as a result? As I said yesterday in the debate on the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, the initial reason given for not extending the increase to legacy benefits involved technical issues, but how does that stand up, 18 months on? This was a political choice.
Many, but not enough, disabled people work, and for those who do, there is a disability pay gap of 20%, with disabled workers earning on average £2.10 less per hour. This is not surprising, given that disabled people tend to be concentrated in lower-paid and part-time roles. Yesterday, ethnicity pay gap reporting was debated in Westminster Hall, but we also need disability pay gap reporting—a policy already adopted by the Liberal Democrats. I would argue that what gets measured gets attention.
Although this debate is about the devastating impact of the Government’s policies on working people, we must not forget that their policies are leaving almost half of disabled people out of work, with an employment gap of 28%. For all that the Government may claim  there are now more disabled people in employment than ever before, there are also simply more people classed as disabled than ever before due to the recent inclusion of those experiencing mental ill health. That is a welcome move, but it changes the statistics.
Hundreds of thousands of people are still kept out of the jobs market through lack of support, inappropriate testing and the fear of sanctions and loss of entitlements if work is attempted but not sustained. The health and disability Green Paper focuses on keeping people in work, not making work more accessible to all, and the Access to Work programme is lengthy, burdensome and simply does not work for small employers—it is a barrier, not a help.
Nearly half of all people in poverty are either disabled or live with someone who is disabled, and they will be disproportionately impacted by the growing squeeze on living standards, whether due to increased energy and fuel prices, cuts or tax rises. This crisis simply cannot continue.

Paula Barker: This debate has made me feel like I am living in a parallel universe. Listening to Conservative Members—if they were still here—we would think everything in the garden is rosy, but Opposition Members know only too well that the cost of living crisis serves as a stark reminder that this Government are not serious about supporting ordinary working people. It confirms to us that they lack ambition when it comes to affording our people a life of dignity in which they can support themselves and their family and comfortably grow old with the assurance that they can support their children and grandchildren.
The economic settlement of the past four decades has smashed the unwritten guarantee that each successive generation will have it better than their parents. If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is that life is precious and that it is for living. Yes, those who can should contribute to society but, crucially, people should get something back and be able to enjoy their time with family and friends, rather than having to receive state support while in work. They should not have to rely on food banks or have to work three jobs just to make ends meet.
The system is not on the side of our people. Indeed, most callous of all, retirement itself is fast becoming a distant dream for so many in areas like mine in the north-west who fear that they will not be able to afford it. If only I had £1 for every time I heard someone say, “I will have to work until I drop.”
As the Scottish trade unionist Jimmy Reid put it:
“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings.”
In my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree, I regularly come across people who do the right thing, work hard and pay their taxes. They are honest, decent, salt-of-the-earth people who operate in the real economy across all sectors—care workers, hospitality workers, call centre workers and those who run small and medium-sized businesses—and too many now tell me that they feel the system has failed them. After all, our people, working-class people, picked up the tab after the last economic crisis in the form of austerity, the biggest squeeze on wages and living standards since the Napoleonic wars and so much besides, and now they will do so again.
Conservative Members will no doubt trot out the same lines about their inadequate increases in the living wage and the personal tax allowance, which ironically they are now freezing—they even cite rising wages in certain sectors. Some might say that their intentions are good. Ultimately, success is measured by outcomes, and on every metric this Government are failing. If they were serious about supporting our people, their priorities would be wholly different.

Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend mentions the salt of the earth. For me, the real salt of the earth are kinship carers, the grandparents who take on their grandchildren because their parents can no longer look after them, yet they get a very raw deal. Does she agree it is time the Government recognised the value of kinship carers and the money that is saved because of the burden they take on? Does she also agree that kinship carers can do without this cut to universal credit?

Paula Barker: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The points he raised are completely pertinent and I agree with all of them.
As I was saying, if the Government were serious about supporting our people, their priorities would be wholly different. We would not see a hike in national insurance. We would not see the scrapping of the £20 UC uplift. We would see a proper funding settlement for local government, rather than backing our cash-strapped local councils into a corner over regressive tax increases. We would see action to tackle rising energy costs—that infamous Marxist idea, according to David Cameron. It is an idea once proposed by my former leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband).
Finally, something often missed in debates such as this: we would see recognition of the role of the trade unions in reducing inequalities in the workplace and across society. In the coming weeks, Members from across this Chamber, including on the Government Benches, will have the opportunity to support the private Member’s Bill on fire and rehire introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). I can say with certainty than an effective system of collective bargaining across sectors of the economy will not cost the Chancellor a penny—he may even save a few pounds.
Research from the New Economics Foundation shows that modelling produced for one of its reports indicates that by the end of the year, without a change in Government policy, 32% of the UK population, or 21.4 million people, will be living below a socially acceptable living standard, as measured by the minimum income standard. That is a third of people in this country, and it is absolutely shameful. Numbers like that tell us that the time for tinkering around the edges is over. Inequality is not some vague concept; it has real consequences for communities such as mine. What is economics if not the allocation of wealth, power and resources? Opposition Members believe in a fairer, more equal and democratic distribution of all three.

Stephen Kinnock: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), who made such a powerful and passionate case, so rightly pointing out the false economy that inequality represents.
Thousands of families in my constituency, like families across the UK, have taken a real buffeting over the past 18 months, and this month could bring the perfect storm for them as the furlough scheme ends, the universal credit uplift is scrapped and the cost of living spirals upwards. The pandemic has had a significant impact on household finances, which have been stretched to breaking point, and not everybody is able to weather the storm as easily as others.
Conservative Members like to claim that their Government have fixed the roof while the sun is shining, but the reality is that the Tory roof is made of straw and a cold wind is blowing. Worrying research from the Bevan Foundation has found that one in three Welsh households does not have enough money to buy anything beyond everyday items, while more than one in five households with a net income of less than £20,000 have seen their income drop since January. The planned cut to universal credit will only deepen these inequalities, as those on the lowest incomes will be pushed into poverty and destitution.
In Aberavon alone, more than 7,000 households receive universal credit. For those families, the £20-a-week uplift has been a lifeline, protecting those who have lost income and preventing them from slipping into poverty or having to visit the food bank to feed their families. It is important to note that of the 7,000 households in Aberavon that are on universal credit, 2,000 have registered since the start of the pandemic. The idea that the removal of the uplift is somehow not a cut is deeply disingenuous, because the 2,000 households that have registered since the start of the pandemic have certainly not known any other rate of universal credit. The Government’s claim is blatantly and deeply disingenuous.
The uplift has made a real difference to family budgets. My inbox has been filled with emails from residents telling me how it has helped them to meet the cost of essentials and allowed them to pay their bills, make the rent, put food on the table and switch the heating on. To some, £20 a week may seem like a small amount of money, but to the families I am talking about it makes a world of difference and would have been crucial to help them with rising energy bills and the escalating cost of the weekly shop. They are now deeply anxious about their precarious finances and worried about how they will make ends meet without the uplift.
The reality is that we are potentially moving into an age of anxiety. The anxiety that is now afflicting so many millions of families and households throughout the country saps the strength from the recovery and defeats growth. It is a brake on growth, which is why the Government’s policies are so deeply damaging. They are not only the wrong thing to do in a civilised society but the definition of a false economy because they are putting a brake on growth and holding back the recovery.
Some of those who contacted me are shopworkers and carers who worked through the pandemic and now face the cut to universal credit. That is no way to thank them for what they have done. Members on the Government Benches stood on their doorsteps applauding our key workers; now they reward them with this cut and a cost-of-living crisis. Their hypocrisy is breath-taking.

Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend talks about people applauding on their doorsteps; when I put a question to the Prime Minister when he was talking about his tax increase, he said that the Government do not pay  care workers. Apparently, somebody else does, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Government pay grants to local authorities, and that money goes to carers? We hope that some of the extra tax money will go to local authorities to pay care workers, so is it not about time that the Government said, “We’re paying for the fiddler so we’re going to decide the dance”? They should decide the level of pay for care workers and it should be much higher than it is now.

Stephen Kinnock: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has confirmed, we are committed to a proper living wage in this country of a minimum of £10 an hour. Government Members constantly ask for Labour’s plan; there is one absolutely key element of it. It is about making work pay and rewarding the heroes of the pandemic: those who kept our economy running and our supply chains open. Rather than rewarding them with cuts and destroying supply chains, we should seek to build an economy that works for everyone.
The grim reality is that around 40% of the families who claim universal credit are in work, but that work is insecure and involves short hours or low pay. They are claiming universal credit not because they are workshy but because the Government are presiding over an economy in which jobs are not paying the bills and low-paid people are forced to top up their income. If the cut to universal credit goes ahead, it will be the biggest overnight cut to the basic rate of social security since the foundation of the modern welfare state. It will plunge families into poverty, forcing them to rely on food banks. But it is the very definition of a false economy: it would remove £7.3 million from the economy in my Aberavon constituency alone. This money is not saved by families; it is spent in the shops and the businesses in my constituency, helping to stimulate the local economy and helping to create jobs. Without it, spending power will decrease and the economic recovery will be stymied. Government Members have rightly stated that we need to grow our way out of the recession, and yet they are promoting policies that will put a brake on growth. It beggars belief.
This squeeze on living standards is not inevitable. Poverty is a political choice. The squeeze on living standards is a political choice. The Government have made the choice of hitting hard-working families with a double whammy of cutting the universal credit uplift and hiking up national insurance contributions. At a time when food, fuel and energy prices are going up, this will place an enormous burden on hard-working people. It is the Government’s choices that have shaped an economy that has become less resilient and less secure. The Government’s botched Brexit and failure to plan for crises such as the pandemic have combined to expose our declining sovereign capability—our lack of supply chain resilience, the empty shelves in the supermarkets, the shortage of HGV drivers, and delays at our border and ports. All of this is combining to drive up prices, and it is hitting working families in their pockets.
Two hauliers in my Aberavon constituency, Frenni and Owens, have told me about the detrimental impact that the shortage of HGV drivers is having on their businesses. Owens estimates that they are 150 drivers short and that that is reducing their capacity by about 1,000 full trucks  a week. They desperately need the Government to take urgent action to address the shortage. What that demonstrates is that the economy is interconnected and that the impact on supply chains impacts on prices, impacts on the cost of living crisis, and impacts on working families. The Government should be doing all they can to support families through these tough times, not pulling the rug out from under them. They must start by cancelling this cruel and self-defeating universal credit cut. Then they must build an economy that works for all, by tackling insecurity at work, lifting people out of in-work poverty and increasing the minimum wage to at least £10 an hour. Then they must tackle the cost of living crisis by sorting out the chaotic shambles of their botched Brexit.
If the Government’s levelling-up agenda is to be anything more than empty rhetoric, they must change course. They must stop this race to the bottom and strive instead to build an economy that works for all. They must stop their complacent, blasé approach to Government and get their act together to address the huge disruption that has been caused by their botched Brexit deal.

Alex Cunningham: The Tories are keen to talk up the importance of work, and I agree with them on the importance of work—good paid jobs must be the answer—but they also allow many firms to go to the wall. The latest in our area is the world-renowned Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company, which built the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Tyne Bridge. Hundreds of jobs in the main firm and in the supply chain have now gone, as neither the Tory mayor in the Tees Valley nor the Government were prepared to do anything to sustain those jobs, simply because the company had a cash-flow problem. Does my hon. Friend not agree that we need to protect the jobs that exist today and not just dream of jobs in the future?

Stephen Kinnock: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Much of the debate today has been about the immediate impact of the universal credit cut and the immediate impact of the cost of living crisis, but we need to examine the fundamental structural weaknesses in the British economy that have seen a massive decline in manufacturing, and that has been turbocharged by 11 years of Tory neglect. We have ended up concentrating so much of our economy in London and the south-east around the financial services sector. The financialisation of the British economy has ended up driving inequality, with a very small percentage at the top being paid eye-watering bonuses while the rest of country is left behind. We have shifted from being a country that makes things to a country that consumes things—a country that is fuelled not by production, but by consumption, and which is floating on a sea of debt. All those structural weaknesses have been chipping away at the resilience of the British economy for 11 years now, and the pandemic and the botched Brexit are now combining to expose the profound lack of resilience in our economy. Therefore, although today’s debate is extremely valuable and important, it fundamentally needs to be seen in the context of 11 years of Tory failure, neglect and a failure to look at the foundations of our economy.
I have the largest steelworks in the United Kingdom in my constituency, and steel is a case in point. The hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who represents a  steel constituency, is not in his place now. We have seen the act of industrial vandalism that saw the closure of the SSI works in Redcar on the watch of the Tory Government; the total and utter failure to address exorbitant energy costs, which are crippling the British steel industry; the failure to stand up to China and the dumping of Chinese steel on the markets, which has deeply undermined our competitiveness across the world; and the failure to have a patriotic procurement policy that would enable us to focus on buying British steel when those opportunities arose. If we are serious about the transition to a green economy, we will never get there without a resilient and vibrant British steel industry. Our steel industry is just one example of how the Government have allowed our manufacturing sector to decline over the last 11 years that they have been in power.

Alex Cunningham: There is some good news this afternoon, because I understand that the Government have actually helped out and we have some form of agreement with CF Fertilisers—the company that makes fertiliser from natural gas and produces 60% of the country’s CO2, which is so desperately needed for everything from beer to anaesthetic systems in hospitals. Will my hon. Friend welcome that, but also reflect on the fact that the company had to go to the brink of failure before the Government chose to act on energy prices and the other factors that were affecting it?

Stephen Kinnock: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head; we appear to be in a constant state of crisis management, based on the fact that there has not been long-term planning. The gas crisis was foreseen by many people years ago, and it was based on a concern about the Government’s failure to deliver gas security by enabling the additional storage of gas. We do not have gas stockpiled in the way that most other advanced industrialised countries across the world have. This is another example of the Government being asleep at the wheel and not having that long-term planning in place.
We have a Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who does not believe in industrial strategy. He has closed down the Industrial Strategy Council at the very time that we need a partnership between the state and business to drive our economy forward. These fundamental issues have to be addressed. We have to look at the cost of living crisis, and develop a partnership between the state and business. We must have the long-term planning in place that we so desperately need.

Alex Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Kinnock: I would very much like to give way to my hon. Friend again, but Mr Deputy Speaker is looking at me in a way that tells me that perhaps it is time to finish my speech.

Nigel Evans: Alex Cunningham, who has not made a speech, has spoken for longer than Wendy Chamberlain.

Stephen Kinnock: I will give way to my hon. Friend one more time, if that is all right.

Alex Cunningham: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He will not know this, but I spent a long part of my career in the gas industry. I remember taking a group of women journalists offshore to the Rough field, off the Humberside and Yorkshire coast. Does he agree that it is extremely lamentable that the Government allowed that storage facility to close down and that that wonderful facility—the first of its type in the world—is no longer in use for gas storage?

Stephen Kinnock: There we have an absolutely spot-on illustration of precisely the problem that I was alluding to, which is that many of the issues that have been exposed by the pandemic are a failure of long-term planning. That is another example of a false economy. It is about the culture of looking at the immediate bottom line. Knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing is the definition of the way in which this Government have been running the country for the past 11 years.
The value of resilience is about understanding the need for investment and about investing in order to save for the future. Prevention is always cheaper than cure. That is why, with the up-front investment that has been so sorely lacking over the past 11 years, those chickens are now coming home to roost. We therefore need to develop a new political culture, a new business culture and a new commitment in this country to security, resilience and partnership. On that basis, the issues that we are addressing today are the symptoms of the problem and not the cause.

Afzal Khan: Hard-working people are facing a triple whammy this winter: rising fuel bills, a national insurance rise, and a £1,000 cut to universal credit. Even before the pandemic, my constituency of Manchester, Gorton had some of the highest rates of fuel poverty in the country, with almost a quarter of families classed as fuel-poor. Across the UK, 3 million households struggle to pay their energy bills, and it is predicted that as many as half a million families could slip into fuel poverty as the temperature drops and bills skyrocket this winter.
In the face of the gas supply crisis, maintaining the energy price cap is welcome, but it will not be enough. As a minimum, the Government should make the £140 warm homes discount automatic and extend it to give more people peace of mind this winter. While the energy price cap may be fair, for many families it is no longer affordable, and in just a matter of weeks it will be at the highest-ever level. As a result, hard-working families already struggling to stretch pay cheques to the end of the month will be forced to make an impossible choice between heating or eating.
To make matters worse still, the CO2 shortages will mean that supermarket shelves could be empty in the coming days as food shortages hit the market. In Manchester, Gorton this will mean more vulnerable people being forced to access food banks. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. It is a disgrace that in the 21st century families and children have become so dependent on charity to survive. Manchester’s own Marcus Rashford has done so much over the past year to shine a light on the shameful rise of food bank usage, and it is time the Government listened. Being unable to  buy food is not an issue with the high cost of living. It is much more fundamental than that: it is about the cost of surviving.
The escalation of fuel bills and the rising cost of living means that the Conservatives’ plan to cut universal credit is no longer just indefensible; it is now unconscionable. The Business Secretary himself has admitted that this
“could be a very difficult winter.”
So the question remains why his Cabinet colleagues will not intervene to alleviate the financial burden on working people and cancel the cut.
This morning, my constituent Alisha emailed me. She is a universal credit claimant and scared at what the cut will mean for her and her daughters. She wrote:
“it will mean I will go without food or warmth so my girls may suffer less…we go without luxuries and each month is a struggle. Our future is bleak. I just hope I can hold on for them.”
Alisha is one of hundreds of constituents who have written to me terrified about their future and worried about how they will get by this winter.
The Resolution Foundation reminds us that to govern is to choose, and I know that my constituents will never forget that the Tory Government have chosen to push millions of hard-working families into poverty. However, it is not too late. There is still time to cancel the cut.

Mick Whitley: I welcome the opportunity to say clearly to the Government that their current pursuit of benefit cuts and tax hikes, their economic mismanagement of the energy sector and the housing market—to name but two—and their casual indifference to the spectre of soaring inflation in the price of basic goods and food are combining to inflict poverty, hardship and misery on working people. The other week, the Prime Minister responded to my question on the negative impact of the £20 a week universal credit cut by saying that his Government have always been ready to put an arm around the people of this country. I would contend that the Government’s policies will more likely lead to a hand being clasped around the throats of working people, the unemployed, the disabled and—tragically—their children. This is not levelling up; it is grinding down. This is not building back better; it is a new round of austerity designed yet again to make the poor pay for another fine mess of the Government’s own creation. People’s standard of living is not, as the Government claim, rising inexorably because of recent wage increases. Overall, it is declining because of the toxic cocktail of measures administered by the Government, which they pretend are medicine to make us better.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that more than 12,500 working-age families in my Birkenhead constituency will be hit by the cut to universal credit, including more than 6,000 working-age families with children. That is almost one third of such families in Birkenhead, and they are set to lose just over £1,000 a year. How can that be fair? In the run-up to the day of shame on 6 October when the axe is scheduled to fall, more people have written to me asking me to oppose the cut than on any other single issue. My mailbag on the cut far outstrips the previous record holder: Dominic Cummings’ emergency eye test at Barnard Castle.
One letter stands out. It is from the seven-year-old son of a constituent who told me how worried he is that this family will not be able to afford to feed to him because he heard that they were about to lose £20. This is a particular concern for children because, as of 2020, 33% of children in Birkenhead—more than 6,000—were officially classed as living in poverty.
This vindictive cut would be bad enough any day of the week, but look at its timing—it is like something straight out of “Hammer House of Horror”. The cut coincides with the increase in national insurance, the surging cost of gas, the prospect of transport costs going through the roof, rents being driven up by the housing crisis and basic foodstuffs costing ever more as the supply chain becomes more and more disrupted.
Let me tell the House what that means to ordinary people. One of my constituents—I will call him Gary—lost his job due to contracting covid-19. He was not furloughed and he rents from a private landlord. He is on universal credit and, with the £20 uplift, after rent he had £46 a week to meet all his expenses. When the cut comes in, he will be left with £26 to meet those same expenses, each of which is going up. Gary, like so many others, faces ruin. I know full well that the Government will respond with their usual refrain that universal credit will help Gary to get a job, but they conveniently forget that their measure, which will put an estimated 800,000 into poverty—including 300.000 children—will have an impact on the about 40% of universal credit claimants who are already in work.

Mark Tami: I intervene to make the point that my hon. Friend has made that there are many working families—those in work—who are on universal credit, which the Prime Minister does not seem to understand.

Mick Whitley: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I made that point to the Prime Minister, who just did not give me an answer.
Those working people will be hit by both the cut and the increase in national insurance. They will number thousands of working hairdressers, shop assistants, street cleaners, hospital porters, farm workers and countless others who are paid peanuts and have no choice but to claim in-work benefits. I genuinely hope that Conservative Members will not cry TINA—there is no alternative—as a previous Government of their persuasion did. Rather I hope that they will withdraw their package of measures that will slash the standard of living for the majority, and adopt the progressive tax policies that my party stands for and that can ensure that those with the broadest shoulders and the most bloated bank accounts pay their fair share, so that my constituents are not forced into a life of poverty.

Tan Dhesi: I express my gratitude to the Labour Treasury team for facilitating this opportunity to debate the devastating effect of Government policy on the finances of working people.
I know the British people have had a very difficult 18 months during the covid crisis, with the sorrowful loss of lives—inexcusably, the highest death toll in Europe —despite having our world-class NHS and our world-class  public health systems, as well as an unforgiveable care home crisis, soaring unemployment, businesses closing, food bank usage skyrocketing and, most recently, the tragic debacle in Afghanistan, leaving many of us, especially my Slough constituents, and British Afghans in absolute despair. I do not think anyone in this Chamber could have foreseen the debilitating impact that a pandemic would have on our communities when we all had the honour of being elected as Members of Parliament.
I want to pay tribute to the extraordinary generosity and service of the Slough Council for Voluntary Service, the Slough Foodbank and other voluntary and faith groups within my constituency. But we as a nation should not have to rely so heavily on their good will. The Government should not be failing the most vulnerable, so as we emerge from what has been a very testing period for our economy, I despair at the direction this Government are taking us in. Instead of rebuilding, investing and stimulating our economy, it seems that they are more intent on ideological cuts to the very services and people that have kept this country going since March 2020.
There are the rises to national insurance, the universal credit cut, the upcoming freeze on the personal income tax allowance, inflation-busting rail fare increases and the highest petrol prices since 2013, as well as rampant waste, cronyism and corruption in the top levels of Government, the damage caused by the Government’s hard-line Brexit deal, and the supply chain and HGV drivers chaos leading to empty supermarket shelves. There is the Government forcing local authorities to raise council tax, and their unwillingness to outlaw the deplorable hire and rehire tactics of unscrupulous employers. There are some of the highest childcare costs in the world, a housing crisis worsened by a cladding crisis, and the absence of a sector-specific deal for our aviation sector, which at one point was world-leading, despite repeated pleas from the likes of myself and other hon. Members. There are the policing cuts leading to less safer communities, and the exorbitant increase in energy bills leaving many languishing in absolute despair.
This is all while we had a Tory Government asleep at the wheel and acting only when it is very late in the day. Make no mistake, although the Government may want to make it seem that way, these vital issues have not arisen solely because of the covid pandemic. These matters have been exacerbated by a decade of austerity and inadequate emergency support meeting a failing post-pandemic plan—a perfect storm that only leaves families worse off.
We in Slough have been impacted acutely by job losses and the inadequate Government support. With Heathrow and the largest singly owned trading estate, the Slough trading estate, on our doorstep, unemployment, furlough and food bank usage have all, sadly, increased. We must not allow a temporary crisis to unevenly and permanently change prospects across our country; we must assist those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, not punish them further with ill thought-out Conservative Government policy.

Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend agree that the aviation sector is not going to recover any time soon? It will need support, and not only for months; it will probably take years before it gets back to previous levels, and this Government are failing to recognise that.

Tan Dhesi: The crisis in Heathrow has impacted not only my Slough constituents but regional airports and the economy of Wales, about which I know my right hon. Friend feels passionately. That is why we must help the aviation sector. Heathrow used to be the busiest airport in Europe but is now no longer even in the top 10; that is diabolical and is a direct consequence of inaction by this inept Government. Not only is it the right thing to do to help the aviation sector, but it is how we will effectively recover as a nation.
One of the most immediate dangers facing my constituents from the Government’s barrage of cuts and policies is the cut to universal credit of £20 a week. Over £17 million will be cut from my constituency, and this will affect families who have battled through a pandemic, who were clapped, who face a very difficult job market, and whose children have only just returned to the routine of school. I have been contacted by constituents who have been furloughed then had their UC capped, and are struggling to make ends meet. There are self-employed people using up all their income and being told to use food banks and claim UC. Continued cries from the Government Benches that that is a solution is insulting to all the families who work tirelessly just to put food on the table.

Kirsty Blackman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is disrespectful of the Secretary of State to say that such people can just pick up another couple of hours of work? A working mother already on part-time hours because of childcare cannot just suddenly become an HGV driver overnight or pick up a couple of extra hours; that is not how it works.

Tan Dhesi: The hon. Lady eloquently makes my point, and even that calculation of two hours has been demonstrated to be completely off the mark; the number of extra hours hard-working Brits will need to work is actually nine.
Another main issue on which constituents ask for my help is housing, and, sadly, that is unsurprising. Average rents have risen by £456 in a year, the highest rise since 2008, rising above average wages by over £2,000, leaving home ownership a distant or impossible dream for too many in the next generation.

Alex Cunningham: The issues my hon. Friend raises will also result in more debt. Is he surprised to learn that debt in this country is 123% of household incomes and that there have been 27,662 individual insolvencies in the second quarter of this year? People are in trouble now, and if this additional help is withdrawn how on earth are they going to make ends meet?

Tan Dhesi: My hon. Friend has demonstrated in this debate that he is an endless fountain of statistics; despite not being on the call list, he has made many interventions that make hard-hitting points to which the Government must listen.
It is important to highlight that home ownership is an impossible dream for so many in the next generation. That is because the quality and quantity of social and affordable housing is wholly inadequate, an issue the Government have failed to address despite being in power for well over a decade. A report showed that affordable housing increased by just 1% last year—90,000  homes short of the bare minimum needed to tackle this crisis. What about those who own homes that are now worthless due to Government inaction on unsafe cladding? That is an absolute shambles. It means a mother of two going without food to pay her rent and feed her children, and others moving from property to property due to rent arrears and evictions. One constituent even told me that their struggle with paying rent and bills made them feel like
“there is no way out”.
It is a vicious cycle—a downward spiral. Is this really the kind of society we want to live in post pandemic? I certainly do not.
We need to realise the potential in our great country and give businesses, families and young people the tools that they need to rebuild and prosper, not break them down before a recovery has even begun. We have a fantastic business hub and innovation centre in my constituency. Prior to the pandemic, we had among the highest business start-up rates in the entire country, we were in the top three for productivity, and we had a booming private sector providing thousands of jobs. But instead of giving the hard-working people of Slough support to ensure that they can once again thrive, these measures are pushing them further down.
In conclusion, I want to see ambition from this Government genuinely to rebuild stronger than before, with a greener, more efficient and innovative economy that will benefit us all, not just a select few.

Matt Western: It is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is a good friend. He put his arguments so forcefully and cogently. So many of the contributions this afternoon, certainly from Opposition Members, have been impressive and consistent in their criticism of the Government’s attitude and policies for addressing a fundamental problem in our society.
That perhaps comes as no surprise. When someone has their lunch hand-delivered to them every day by a company based in the Cotswolds, they might not be totally in touch with what is going on out in the economy—the price of food, the price of sandwiches and so on—but as I understand it, that is exactly what happens for the Prime Minister; one of his donors delivers a sandwich to him every day. It is a very reputable and nice business, based in the Cotswolds; I actually visited it myself once.
That kind of out-of-touch-ness is at the heart of this Government. They are divorced from the harsh impacts of what is going on in our economy—of inflation and the real cost of living. We must think about what has happened in the past 15 or 18 months for our nurses, hairdressers, decorators, plumbers, brickies, care workers—all those who are now facing the severe impacts of really high inflation, with wage growth not keeping up.
Those of us who are in touch with the weekly shop, as was evidenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), know how much we are seeing in price increases—not just the standard price increases that are going on, but the price gouging that is happening on our high streets. I have seen that at  first hand. We have a Tesco store on the Parade in Leamington, and there is sometimes a 60% price difference between what people pay in the Tesco superstore a mile and a half away and what the vulnerable, the elderly and so on pay in that store on the high street.
I am not sure how this computes. If someone’s real concerns are about buying Lulu Lytle wallpaper at £840 a roll, I do not think that necessarily puts them in touch with what is really going on at the local DIY store, or the cost of timber down the timber merchant to build themselves a shed. I think that is at the heart of the policy and the Government’s inaction in addressing inflation and the pressures on families up and down our country. Certainly, the hard-working people in Warwick and Leamington are being very hard hit by rising costs. We are all facing the rising prices of energy, food, travel and housing, all of which are contributing to rising inflation, not to mention, as has been said repeatedly from the Opposition Benches, the sledgehammer of the universal credit cut and the pressure on pensions. When we put all that into the mix, together with tax increases, we realise how hard it will be for people and families up and down the country.
Looking at inflation—sadly, I am one of those who takes a real interest in this sort of stuff—the biggest jump on record was in August. The Bank of England expects inflation to peak at 4%. I think it is slightly underestimating the impact of what could happen—personally, I think it might exceed that—but even 4% is double the Bank of England inflation target of 2%. The Government, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor seem to be acting surprised that inflation will be peaking at 4%, but surely they will have access to briefings from the Bank of England and the senior economists—the likes of Andy Haldane and others—who will be saying what is happening to the UK and global economy and where the price pressures are that will impact on ordinary households. They track the data and get input data from businesses in the regions—in the west midlands, all the businesses will be feeding that information into the Bank of England’s regional office.

Karin Smyth: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about inflation. He and I may be of a similar age and remember how, perhaps in our younger years, inflation was such an important issue that we were mindful of almost daily. However, there is a generation that does not really understand, or perhaps has not experienced, what inflation means to the daily and weekly cost of living for ordinary families. By not being up-front or public about this, the Government are perhaps not educating people on how to manage the coming crisis.

Matt Western: I thank my hon. Friend; she is incredibly generous to suggest that I might be of a similar age, but I will take that compliment from her. Of course, I agree. Certainly, I think about my generation and what happened to inflation in, say, 1990 and 1991, as someone who was paying a mortgage at the time and seeing 60% of my income going on the mortgage because of the excessive interest. Those on tracker mortgages and so on will be really worried about what is happening, because their incomes are certainly not keeping up with that kind of increase. I speak as someone who suffered—okay, I am nowhere near, and never have been, the sharp edge of the sort of extreme poverty that we are here to talk about.  However, we should realise the pressure that that puts people under emotionally and psychologically, and the impact on mental health. What inflation can do, in eroding pensions and impacting on household budgets, should be a real concern to everyone in this House.

Kirsty Blackman: On that point, we got our first mortgage in 2009. People who have had a mortgage for as long as I have had, which is about 12 years, have never really seen interest rate hikes. There are people in the group that the hon. Member is talking about who are not worried because they have never met this in the face, and they are going to get such a shock when interest rates rise, as he is describing.

Matt Western: I thank the hon. Member, or perhaps I can suggest friend. Indeed, we have been insulated these past 10 years from the ravages of inflation that some of us know—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) would say this—can erode business confidence and have an extreme impact on household budgets.

Alex Cunningham: I well remember the Thatcher Government, when interest rates went up and up and up and up. Even those on good wages were struggling, so it was even more difficult for others. There is a storm ahead for many people. Does my hon. Friend agree that savings are very important? The average savings for a low-income household are £95, while a high-income person is likely to have £63,000 in savings. Who is going to come off worse?

Matt Western: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We all have to understand that it is easy to talk about numbers and statistics in the abstract, but the reality for so many people, as he illustrates, is that they do not just have the uncertainty and insecurity of zero-hours contracts and the pressures of the cut to universal credit, but having so little money in the bank brings pressures on households. And here we have inflation about to rip into those households through the energy price increases I am going to come on to talk about.
I talked about the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. Those in corporate business and in senior positions in Government must know what is happening to inflation. They must know what forecasters are saying. When commodities are bought, all energy costs are forward priced—they know what is coming down the track—so the Chancellor could suggest only a 1% increase for nurses when he knew all along that there was likely to be a significant spike in inflation coming. Energy costs are a major issue, one that has perhaps been the driver to this particular debate, alongside the cut in universal credit. We have long known for months that there was going to be an increase in gas prices of 12% in October. That will have a significant impact on household bills. The average gas and electricity bill for customers will go up by £139 a year to just under £1,300. Now, we have to rely on the Government to get a grip to avoid further increases as a result of this unfolding crisis.
It is fundamentally a failure of long-term Government planning over the past decade that we, as a country, are so exposed and vulnerable to rising gas prices. We should have been building energy resilience, instead of being one of the countries most reliant on foreign gas. We should have been investing in domestically produced renewable energy. Instead, we squandered 10 years burning  fossil fuels. When I was working on Warwick District Council as a councillor seven years ago, I proposed the Warwickshire energy plan to save people money, create energy resilience and address energy poverty. Sadly, there was not the gumption to follow through on that, and I am disappointed it never materialised.

Mark Tami: A perfect example of the point my hon. Friend is making is Wylfa nuclear power station in north Wales, in Anglesey. Building could have started on that and it would have been part of a growing nuclear programme, but the Government failed to support it. A spin-off would have been high-tech jobs, but the Government are not interested—they just step back.

Matt Western: I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. I think the important thing is that the Cameron-Osborne Government in particular became obsessed with fracking and took their eye off the ball with other energy sources. In Warwickshire, we had Algy Cluff come and visit; he was a significant donor to the Conservative party, I think, and he was really interested in having blocks under Warwickshire that he would frack. That undermined long-term planning for projects like the one that my right hon. Friend mentions.
If the Government had followed through, we could have been building zero-carbon homes since 2016. Instead, the Cameron, Osborne and—dare I say it—Liberal Democrat Government scrapped the regulations for housing developer donors. A million homes could have been built since 2016, but something like 10% of households in my constituency are in fuel poverty already and I can only see that figure rising. Several thousand homes in my constituency could have benefited from forward-thinking house building and zero-carbon homes, because we have seen such an explosion in house building across south Warwick and south Leamington.

Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend might not know this, but I was in the gas industry for many years, as I mentioned earlier, and I was involved in a warm homes system. We went door to door, systematically insulating people’s homes and windows doing all manner of other things, but the current Government have done away with that. They have also done away with much of the responsibility on energy companies to do more in that space. Does he agree that energy companies could be expected to do much more to insulate our homes?

Matt Western: I absolutely agree—it is such a key point. There are so many schemes that could be introduced, and there is some excellent practice across Europe; I think it is currently beyond the wit of the Government, but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for council housing I am certainly keen that we should push for it.
On energy costs, I go back to the point about heavy manufacturing. I am passionate about our manufacturing sector—not just the automotive sector, which I have talked about often, but chemicals, aerospace and steel. We have heard the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) made about the impact on steel, but the impact will be felt throughout our manufacturing: steel goes into the food and drink sector as much as into automotive and elsewhere.
The reality is that the price varies for energy. For gas in the UK, I think that I am right in saying that there is a 40% premium against the average in Europe, which is making us uncompetitive in comparison and will have an impact on future investment and, ultimately, on jobs.
Food prices are another big driver of inflation. The price of food and drink in shops and supermarkets has risen by more than 1% in August, the highest growth since 2008. Food commodity prices have increased by 17% since the start of the year. The Food and Drink Federation says that the cost per household of food and drink shopping will increase by more than £160 per year because of Government policies—that is the federation speaking, not me.
Various hon. Members have mentioned the supply chain disruption, which will lead to higher prices. We have heard about the shortages of heavy goods vehicle drivers, but there are also shortages of refrigerants and carbon dioxide, and of course there is the additional complexity of delays at borders and ports.
I turn to travel. I asked the Minister about the price of petrol, but in July petrol prices hit their highest level in almost eight years. It now costs £74.26 to fill a 55-litre family car with petrol, a 17% increase—17% seems to be a repeating figure—since the start of the year, by the Government’s own data. Diesel, by comparison, has risen by just 14%.
Rail fares are not faring any better. The Government are planning fare rises of 4.8% next year, way ahead of inflation. The average commuter faces paying £3,300 for an annual season ticket, 50% more than in 2010. An annual season ticket from Leamington to London, incidentally, now costs £8,700, a significant amount of money.
As for housing, rents have risen at their fastest rate since 2008, at a time when we are seeing declining home ownership, and the vulnerability that confronts so many people as more and more are living in the private rental sector. Rents in the west midlands are now £1,192 higher than they were in 2011, and incomes have certainly not kept pace with that.

Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I think those who are listening will appreciate that for some families the combination of rising prices, rising rents and rising costs of travel to work will lead to absolute desperation—and, of course, this does not just have an impact on individuals and families; it has a wider societal impact. If people are unable to pay their rent, if they are made homeless and if that affects their mental health, an enormous strain will be placed on our public services and on society more broadly. Measures such as the cut in universal credit are complete madness, because the longer-term costs for the Government will be even higher than the costs of maintaining the uplift.

Matt Western: My hon. Friend is spot on. Short-term thinking often costs much more in the long term, and impacts of that kind will have very long-term consequences on people. We all know about the impact on mental health and how that can then affect people’s home lives, social lives and family lives, but it can also affect their working lives, which can have an economic consequence too, as well as increasing costs in the national health service and elsewhere.
We need to build more social housing for rent. Just 21 social rent council homes have been built in the Warwick district since 2010.
Let me now turn to the unimaginable and, I think, inadmissible cut in universal credit. It just underlines how out of touch this Government are that they are cutting the £20 uplift. Reversing that decision would prevent families from experiencing an even sharper hit during this cost of living crisis. I think it shameful that the very workers who got us through the crisis are now in the firing line for a £1,000 cut in their income every year. I think about the carers, the shop workers and the delivery drivers—all the people who kept the wheels of the economy turning through such difficult times. Data from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that in Warwick and Leamington, which I think many people would assume to be a prosperous area, 13% of working-age families—6,300—and 29% of working-age families with children will be affected by the cut. This really is a poverty policy.
We have heard a great many claims about levelling up, but the one area in which the Government seem to be succeeding is levelling up on taxes which are more regressive than ever. We may think back to the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20%; now we are seeing a rise in national insurance and rises in council tax across our local authorities. The average band D council tax set by authorities in England in 2021-22 is just under £1,900, a 4.4% increase on the 2020-21 figure. These are real costs to people. As we have heard, the national insurance increase is the biggest tax rise for families—the most significant change—in 50 years. Graduates now face a marginal tax rate of nearly 50%: that, surely, is a tax on aspiration.

Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend talks about tax rates. He will be interested to know that a tweet has just come in from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation saying that
“191 Conservative seats will see more than a third of working-age families with children affected by the cut to #Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit. There’s still time for the Government to listen to the huge opposition to this cut and change course”.
I know that my hon. Friend will agree.

Matt Western: I can assure my hon. Friend that I absolutely agree with that. It was so telling that five or six former Conservative Work and Pensions Ministers said that they were absolutely against this cut. Of course, everyone on this side of the House is against it. It is also quite obvious to economists that the uplift should not be cut but left in place. The cost is £6 billion, I think, and in the context of some of the overspends that the Government have been guilty of during the pandemic, that is actually very little.
The cost of living tsunami that families will face in Warwick and Leamington and across the country this winter shows just how out of touch this Government are. Instead of making positive plans to tackle it, I am afraid that they are simply making it worse. We have the national insurance and council tax increases, and now we have the universal credit cut. The Government are failing to tackle the supply chain disruption that has been exacerbated by covid and Brexit, and we now have rising energy prices, rail fare increases and rising rents. The Government seem to be happy to waste huge  amounts of taxpayers’ money on outsourcing and crony contracts, and I just feel that they are really out of touch. They seem to know little about the true cost of living.
We have a Prime Minister who spends—or rather, gets his donor friends to spend—tens of thousands of pounds on the refurbishment of his flat, and a Chancellor who is happy to spend a significant amount of money on a swimming pool, but they will seemingly not listen to all of us saying that there is a need to retain the £20 uplift. I was really surprised when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), did not know how much it cost to fill up a car. I will tell him: it is 77 quid. He had no idea how much people spent on petrol a year. I can tell him that it is 17% more than it was at the beginning of the year.

Patricia Gibson: There is no doubt that we are facing a cost of living crisis, with universal credit to be cut by £20 a week, negatively impacting 10,406 of my constituents and 400,000 people across Scotland; with a national insurance hike hitting those on the lowest incomes; with energy prices expected to soar by at least £139 for millions of households; with 16,500 jobs in Scotland still on furlough—that is 5% of all those who were furloughed; with exports from the UK falling by a staggering €16 billion, down 17.1% in the first seven months of this year; and with the ending of free movement disrupting supply chains and leading to empty supermarket shelves and higher prices. I could go on, but it really does feel like the end of days.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Ardrossan, Largs and other food banks in my constituency and to all the voluntary organisations that are supporting those in North Ayrshire and Arran who are in financial distress and who will fall into financial distress as a result of the universal credit cut. Apparently, though, it seems that none of the soaring prices and empty supermarket shelves are a consequence of Brexit. No, they are a consequence of covid, or the problem is global, or it is the bogeyman! It is the fault of anything or anyone except the rabid Brexiteers on the Tory Benches.
Of course there are global issues at play, but to suggest that the disruption to our economy is nothing to do with Brexit is complete nonsense. We have a shortage of HGV drivers, food packers and staff in food processing plants, and it is time that that was faced up to. I was told yesterday by the Secretary of State for Business that there was no point in talking about the consequences of Brexit, as that would be re-fighting the battles of five years ago. That might explain why we are being told that Brexit has nothing to do with our empty supermarket shelves, which incidentally no country in the EU is experiencing. Global factors apparently affect the UK uniquely.
We can all understand the scepticism with which the Business Secretary’s words were met yesterday when he said there will be no energy shortage this winter. The truth is that we cannot believe a word this Government say. This is the Government who told us there would be no food shortages, no price rises and no fall in exports.  The sunlit uplands that they presented as their vision of Brexit have become the nightmare about which we warned.
The harsh and cruel reality is that food prices are up, energy prices are up, inflation is up, pensioner poverty is up, child poverty is up and taxes are up, regressive as they are, and the Tory response to this cost of living crisis is to cut universal credit. Today’s debate is about poverty, which prevents people from reaching their potential and prevents children from achieving their best in school. It robs people of their good mental health and of their physical health. It is corrosive, it grinds people down and, ultimately, it kills them. I remember when this Government used to pretend to care about the just about managing, but now they seem to care for the just about managing just as much as they care for those who live in deep poverty.
Today we hear that the National Audit Office has discovered that the Department for Work and Pensions underpaid 134,000 pensioners by a total of more than £1 billion in state pension, and of course women are disproportionately affected. With the energy price cap rise, it will be a cold winter for many of my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, but it has been wilfully and deliberately made colder by this Government’s £1,040 a year cut to universal credit. Shame on them. Their callous disregard for poverty shows with crystal clarity that the Conservative party is not fit to govern.
It would be laughable if it were not so serious. This bumbling Prime Minister pledged to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates. That is big talk from a Prime Minister who breaks pledges with ease, who is struggling to keep the lights on and who has insisted, despite the evidence to the contrary, that child poverty is falling. That view is brought to us by the same Prime Minister who said Brexit would lower energy prices.
I remember when, in 2012, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) dismissed the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the then Chancellor, George Osborne, as “two arrogant posh boys” with
“no passion to want to understand the lives of others.”
I ask anyone sitting on the Conservative Benches if they would care to tell me what has changed. If it was true of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor then, by God how much truer is it now? I wonder what Conservative Members think of that.
The Prime Minister said today—this will put the fear of God into the House—that it will not be a tough winter. Let us hope he is right about something for once in his life, because we know that for too many in our constituencies it will indeed be a tough winter. This Government are not fit to govern and their so-called global Britain is not just an illusion but a laughing stock. It is a hallow phrase that means nothing to those who are struggling, and it is why so many of us in Scotland are sick to the back teeth of this cruel, nonsensical incompetence. We can and will take our future into our own hands and build a fairer, more equal, more compassionate society in an independent Scotland. We can then start to see what levelling up really looks like, instead of the shoddy window dressing we see before us.

Kim Johnson: I must be living in the same alternative universe as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker)  because I do not recognise any of the positive spin I have heard from Conservative Members this afternoon. They must be experiencing selective amnesia. Eleven years of draconian austerity measures have attacked some of our most deprived communities, particularly in Liverpool. They have robbed 63%—£450 million—from my great city, which has had a devastating impact on the most deprived.
In my constituency, we have some of the highest child poverty rates in the country, which rocket to 29.3%, compared with the national average of 19.1%. One quarter of the children in my constituency live in absolute poverty. This Government are making decisions to hit the income of those households that are completely unconscionable and must be stopped. Like most of my Labour colleagues, I receive lots of desperate emails. One of my constituents wrote to me to say that the thought of more cuts is making them physically and mentally unwell, and they fear that when these cuts go ahead, they will lose everything they have worked so hard for over the years. Another told me that they have just £100 to survive until their next pay day, which is still 26 days away. They described their heartbreaking daily cycle of hunger, worry and depression.
This Government’s proposals to cut UC, end furlough and hike national insurance, and now the rise in energy prices, is creating a Tory-manufactured cost-of-living crisis. This could not have come at a worse time, as the cost of living is rising. Income is down and workers are doing more work for less pay. We are experiencing fire and rehire, less wages, more work, and worse terms and conditions. How can this Government talk about levelling up while disproportionately taking money out of the pockets of low-paid people who are reliant on welfare payments? In my constituency, more than 6,200 people are in receipt of unemployment-related benefits, including UC, which in reality supports a huge number of working people. That represents about a 50% rise since the start of the pandemic. With the end of furlough, the cut to UC and the hike on taxes on working people, this Government are creating the perfect storm, driving working people further into poverty through a combination of welfare cuts, tax hikes and soaring living costs.
I wish to conclude by paying tribute to Liverpool City Council, the voluntary and community centres, and all of the law centres in my constituency for the amazing work they have done during this pandemic to support those in most need. I dread to think what would have happened without that amazing support.

Richard Thomson: It is a pleasure to take part in this timely debate, as we surely head towards a cold Tory winter of discontent, of high prices, shortages and rising unemployment. I am privileged to represent a constituency in the north-east of Scotland, which is generally regarded as a prosperous area. It has certainly suffered from the oil and gas downturn over the past few years. It is still to benefit from the transition to renewable energy technologies that we all fervently hope to see, and it has certainly borne the brunt of the austerity agenda we have experienced in recent years. My constituency is a mix of urban and rural, taking in a slice of the north of the city of Aberdeen and extending  out into the rural countryside, with its mix of small towns and villages. Although the economic statistics might show that it has one of the highest levels of gross value added in Scotland, never mind the UK and never mind Europe, that hides the reality of the experience for far too many who live there. Someone who went to the go-to data set of the Scottish index of multiple deprivation and looked at Aberdeenshire might pick out a handful of streets that would show a concentrated amount of deprivation, but that misses out important parts of the picture. It misses the individual stories hidden within, because the reality is that there is a significant amount of rural deprivation and a range of intersecting factors that contribute to that.
As I know myself, living in a small community, there is the perennial issue of trying to find childcare. The Scottish Government are tackling that with their 1,140 hours of free childcare, which it is no exaggeration to say will be an absolute game-changer for many in Scotland with young families.
There are the additional costs of heating, particularly for those who live off the grid. People who get their energy for heating and cooking from heating oil do not get the opportunity to shop around on MoneySuperMarket.com for the best suppliers. There is a limited number of suppliers and they have to buy in bulk. Despite some of the many laudable community initiatives that have come through the community planning system to try to take the edge off that for people, it is still an additional expense of rurality.
There are transport costs. Not everybody lives near a public transport link, so there is the added cost of having to run a car to get to work, get about and access public services when public transport is not always an option.
People have been hard-pressed by austerity for a number of years. It is easy for those who have never lived in such an environment or who have never experienced scarcity or shortage in any significant way themselves to fully understand how expensive it can be to be short of money. People buy what they can afford, not what lasts best. They pay more for their energy, particularly if they are, as many colleagues have said, trapped on a prepayment meter, with everything that goes with that. Access to credit and financial services is much harder and is often more expensive when it is available.
Deprivation also hits those who at one point might have been seen as doing well—we could call them, as some have, the precariat. A significant number of people right across Scotland and the UK are probably no more than a missed pay cheque or a significant household expense away from serious financial difficulties. Let me cite the example of a citizens advice bureau that is not in my constituency—it is in the neighbouring constituency to the south, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine—but covers areas of my constituency and I do not believe it is atypical. This citizens advice bureau is located in Westhill—in what would, on the surface, look like a prosperous set of communities there and roundabout—but it has one of the highest rates of people coming through its doors in search of debt advice.
Right across the north-east of Scotland, the use of food banks is common; not a community is unserved and, as we have heard, demand is, as in other areas, heading in only one direction, and sadly it is not down.
For me, tackling poverty means many things, but above all it means treating people as citizens, with dignity, and enabling them to participate fully in society on their own terms, shorn of the shame of being left without. What does it say of the UK Government that they have made a set of policy choices, particularly over the past fortnight, that seek to make it harder for families and individuals to provide that dignity for themselves and to participate as they might wish in wider society?

Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the people in my constituency of Swansea West and elsewhere who voted in good faith for Brexit—for more money, more control and more jobs—have seen a sort of Brexit dividend, which is basically rising food prices, because of food barriers and a falling currency, and national insurance going up and universal credit going down? Does he think that the poorest should get an injection of money to make up for that, rather than being hammered?

Richard Thomson: The hon. Gentleman makes a succinct and powerful point about how people voted in good faith for something that has turned out to be a fiction and a fantasy. I would always argue for more money to help those who are most in need—there is also an economic benefit to that in the boosting of consumption—but one of the first steps we could take is not to take money away. If the hon. Gentleman waits patiently, he may hear that I have more to say on that later in my speech, but he makes a powerful point.
In the Minister’s response to the opening speech of the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), he spoke of the need to make tough choices. It is that macho rhetoric—fine, easy words that fall a great deal harder on those on whom those choices impact than they do on the perennial Conservative and Unionist party’s self-conceit of being a party of low taxation, which it seldom ever lives up to in office in any meaningful way.
Those tough choices come with very long-standing consequences: they impact on people’s children; they impact on family life and well-being; they impact on a person’s health; they impact on their self-esteem; they impact on their opportunities; and they impact on life chances, and they do so across generations.
In the past fortnight alone, we have seen the triple lock gone, removing the link between earnings and pensions. We have seen the end of furlough. We have seen the £1,040 cut to universal credit. We have seen a breaking of the manifesto promise not to increase national insurance, in a move that will hit the youngest and the poorest the hardest and that will embed generational and geographical inequalities and bake them into our social and economic reality for generations to come. As has been said, this has all been exacerbated by Brexit, with the shortages of products that that will bring, allied to an accompanying increase in prices.

Kirsty Blackman: Does my hon. Friend feel that, after a decade of austerity, after all the hits from Brexit, and after covid, this is the worst possible time to be taking money away from people?

Richard Thomson: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I was deficient—I should have said what a magnificent speech she made earlier on, encapsulating  as it did what it really means to be without and to be in search of that dignity. She is absolutely correct in what she says: this is absolutely the worst time to be taking away that support. It is almost like the Chancellor has gone out to the pub for a round of drinks. He has carried the drinks away from the bar—it was a very complicated order—and staggered across the floor with a big tray, and when he is about one yard from the table, he drops the whole lot, and leaves it smashed on the floor. It is the same with the economy, having carried it thus far. It is inept to say the least.

Douglas Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Thomson: I will give way with great pleasure. The hon. Gentleman has been waiting some considerable amount of time, so I cannot wait to hear what he has to say.

Douglas Ross: I always wait a long time to hear from the hon. Gentleman. He is speaking about the worst possible decision at the worst possible time. As we face a global energy crisis, does he not agree that it is the worst possible decision to allow the Greens into a coalition Government in Scotland, and does he agree that it will affect my Moray constituents and his Gordon constituents if they get their way and have the oil industry transition or die and shut down in the next 10 years?

Richard Thomson: That is surprising for a gentleman who has served in both Parliaments. I would have expected him to be quite au fait with the constitutional settlement. There is no decision that can ever be taken in Holyrood that would bring about the situation that he describes. [Interruption.] When I am on my feet, the hon. Gentleman needs to be in his seat, as I believe he said last week to somebody more senior than either of us for the moment. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government have managed, through this deal with the Greens, to invest money in the energy transition. There is actually money on the table—money that has not been put on the table by the UK Government despite their big words. They are delivering infrastructure for my constituents, with investment in roads and the examination of possible future investment in rail. I am certain that the benefits will fall through to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and to Moray as well, even though I have absolutely no doubt that he will find the worst possible angle that he can try to put on it for his election leaflets when he is next up for election.
We have a UK Government who speak the language of levelling up, while simultaneously grinding down on those who work the hardest and those who have the least. I personally would much rather that we judge their efforts on the fairness that they exhibit in their approach to Government and the equality of opportunity that can be offered to all regardless of means or background to deliver the improved outcomes that we all strive for.
If we want to build back better and build back fairer, Scotland quite clearly needs to be well away from the baleful influence of Conservatives in this place and from the continued rule of Westminster Conservative Governments.

Catherine West: What an excellent debate it has been. It was good to hear the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Hartlepool  (Jill Mortimer), a number of contributions from the north-east, and different experiences from colleagues across the House.
Many colleagues thanked the volunteers who run food banks. I was reflecting that when I first began contributing to civic life as a councillor, it was all about opening Sure Start centres, and going to see new science labs at secondary schools, new running tracks and new additions to leisure centres—all those hopeful things that we were doing nearly 20 years ago. What a difficult winter we have ahead of us, when we are all talking about visiting food banks on our constituency days. Last Friday I visited Naomi from Highgate, who has a distribution point in her garage. There are soup kitchens run by Mary in Bounds Green and by Ann in Middle Lane in Hornsey. This is the reality of constituency life now and it is hard to compare the two situations: the first, a sense of hope and opportunity for future generations; and now, a dim and difficult winter ahead.
The 8.3% increase in food prices will bring a great deal of difficulty to households that will already be clobbered by the universal credit cut, if it goes ahead—it is not too late to do a U-turn. That £20 less a week will have a huge impact, not only on the families in our constituencies, but on the high street. How many of us are seeing closed shop fronts because people do not have the money in their pockets to keep things going? Next April, the increased national insurance contribution will come to the fore and people will be clobbered again—more taxation than the 1950s. According to Zoopla, rents are up by 5% in the last 12 months. Rail fares are also up, in some cases by thousands of pounds, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) mentioned.
Let me turn to local authorities. As a vice chair of the Local Government Association, I am extremely concerned about the difficult decisions that local councillors will have to make. In my experience, local councillors—regardless of party—do not actually like putting up council tax, but unfortunately once again council tax will be going up, because they will have to pay for the new national insurance contributions, which will be payable by local authorities for all the new staff needed to tackle the NHS backlog. Taking on more health and social care staff is great, but it will have a double impact because the public sector will be paying twice.
This is the third most expensive country globally for putting children into childcare if we need to rush out to work. It is wonderful to have more women and more parents in work, but the cost for people with two children under the age of five or six is enormous.
We have had the debate on energy prices at length today. We are going to be paying at least £7 a week more, and that is a very modest assessment by the Financial Times today. The £20 cut, plus the £7 increase, plus the 8.3% increase in food prices means that we are looking at a really difficult winter.
There is also the impact on children in schools where the pupil premium has been cut. In Hornsey and Wood Green, in my local government area of Haringey, there has been a £600,000 cut to the pupil premium. The fact that schools will be reducing their staff and their input will just add to the terrible cuts to household budgets.
We face a really difficult time. This has been an excellent debate. There is still time for the Government to change their mind on this added pain for working people. I hope that they will reconsider this foolish decision and its timing, as the recovery is not yet home and secure. I ask them please to think again.

Steve Reed: I thank Members who have contributed to today’s debate. We have heard excellent and very thoughtful speeches from Members in all parts of the House, but particularly from those on the Labour Benches.
This debate is not about whether taxes should go up to fund services; it is about the fairness of clobbering working people with tax rises after a global economic crisis and at a time when living standards are being squeezed because prices are going up. We have heard moving stories from my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for Islwyn (Chris Evans), for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) about how hard life is becoming for working people in their constituencies.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) said in her opening comments, this is a debate about the choices the Government have made over the decade they have been in power: the choices they made during the pandemic and the choices they are making now as life slowly returns to normal. It was the Conservatives’ choice last year to force a 5% council tax rise after their costly mistakes and their delay in locking down led our country into the worst recession of any major economy. It was the Conservatives’ choice to cut universal credit, an absolute lifeline for so many working people while prices are on the rise, tipping many working families over the edge into debt and leaving them fearful about the future, as we heard so eloquently from many hon. and right hon. Members.
It is the Conservatives’ choice to clobber working families with a national insurance tax hike rather than ask those with the broadest shoulders to pay their fair share. How can it be right that a landlord who rents out a portfolio of properties does not pay a single penny more while their working tenants get clobbered with tax rises? How can it be fair that the care workers we all clapped last year are this year rewarded with a cut in their take-home pay—no rise in pay, just a Tory rise in their taxes? That is not what the country expected. It is certainly not what those heroes on the frontline deserve. The national insurance tax rise breaks the manifesto pledge that every single Conservative Member was elected on less than two years ago: a pledge so important that the Prime Minister highlighted it in his personal foreword to the manifesto that every single Conservative MP was elected on. Every one of them has broken their promises and has broken trust with the voters who sent them here.
So what will working families get in return for these manifesto-busting Tory tax hikes? What is the gain for all the pain? The Prime Minister told us that this tax  increase would pay for his plan for social care—except, of course, the Conservatives’ social care plan does not fix the social care crisis. The Prime Minister told us on his very first day in Downing Street that he had a plan to fix social care. Strangely, he kept that plan hidden for three years. We waited all that time without seeing a dot or a comma of the plan that he supposedly already had ready. When he finally unveiled it, he rushed through a vote on it within 24 hours in a desperate bid to avoid scrutiny. As we read in The Times, he bludgeoned those brave few Conservative MPs who still think keeping their tax promises matters with threats to cut off investment and punish their constituents—the people that voted to send them here in the first place.
The Prime Minister railroaded such an important policy through with such desperate haste because he wanted to push it through before anyone noticed that there is nothing extra for social care for at least three years. In fact, there will not be any extra money ever unless the Government plan to cut the NHS again at some point in the future. Astonishingly, this back-of-an-envelope plan could actually lead to cuts in social care. If councils have to pay increased employers’ national insurance contributions, they will have to cut services or put up council tax even more to pay for it, and care homes are reporting that if the Government do not fund the lost cross-subsidies from private purchasers, they will go bust. The Prime Minister cannot even guarantee that older people will not have to sell their home to pay for social care. That is another election promise smashed to smithereens. The cap on costs does not include accommodation, so people in care will still face charges totalling hundreds of pounds a week even after they have reached the cap.
Where will people living in a town in the north of England in a house worth £180,000 find the £85,000 plus the tens of thousands in accommodation costs that the Government expect them to pay without selling their home? Are the Conservatives so out of touch that they think most people have that kind of money stashed away in savings accounts? They do not. What kind of plan for social care ends up costing working families more while cutting the services they are paying for and closing down the care homes they need to use while still forcing older people to sell their homes? Only a totally botched plan from these tax-hiking, pledge-busting Conservatives.
The Government’s failure on social care means that councils have been left with a £2.7 billion black hole in their social care budgets. Since the national insurance tax hike will not plug that gap because not a penny is going on social care, what do the Government expect councils to do next April, faced with that dilemma? We need not wonder, because it is all right there in black and white in the social care plan—it could not be clearer. It says:
“We expect demographic and unit cost pressures will be met through council tax”.
That is why the Health and Social Care Secretary could not rule out tax rises last week and why I strongly suspect that the Minister will not rule them out in her contribution.
The Prime Minister has primed a council tax bombshell ready to go off next April. The Conservatives will clobber working families with a triple tax whammy, with yet another Conservative council tax hike next year on top  of the Conservative council tax hike this year. That is on top of the Conservative national insurance tax hike, and that is on top of the Conservative cut to universal credit. They just cannot help themselves—they are Tory taxaholics.
Earlier this year, the Government’s inflation-busting council tax rise hit working families in the pocket, with the economy struggling to recover after the worst crisis of any major economy. Their council tax hike next year will land on people’s doormats after a winter of rising inflation and rising energy prices. The average band D council tax rate looks set to top £2,000 a year by 2024. Let me tell them here and now that working families simply cannot afford it.
The pain does not end there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South said in her opening remarks, when social care costs outstrip the funding that councils have available, they are forced to cut other services—even after the Conservatives’ council tax hikes. Just count the cost to communities of these Conservative choices: libraries cut; youth services cut; children’s centres cut; and even public toilets cut. Thanks to the Conservatives, councils are cutting everything except the grass. The message to the public is loud and clear: pay more but get less under the Conservatives.
The headwinds facing working people this year are reaching gale force. Prices are up. Energy costs are up. Taxes are up. Rents are up. Childcare costs are up. Rail fares are up. The only thing going down is wages, which are still lower than under the last Labour Government.
The supermarkets are running out of fresh fruit and vegetables thanks to the Government’s incompetence, but, because household incomes are under so much pressure, many people could not afford to buy them anyway. What a state they have left our country in. Put simply, the country faces a Tory winter of discontent. Working families are facing a squeeze in their living standards that they simply cannot afford, all because of the bad choices, broken promises and sheer crass incompetence of this failing Conservative Government.

Mims Davies: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this important and wide-ranging debate. I will endeavour to respond to as many points raised as possible in the time I have. First, the Opposition have focused on benefits today, but the reality is that this debate is about working people. It is about people in work getting the right support that raises them out of poverty, and benefits are our safety net.
Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), who made her maiden speech. She spoke about the value she will bring to this place as the first Conservative elected for her constituency, and about her unwavering determination to be here. The fact is that she will be a strong voice in this House, and we welcome her heartily.
The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) spoke about the price of food. I know the incredible strength of her community and what the pandemic has done across many of our communities. We have all worked together to support those communities. Let us commend all the communities and people who have stepped forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) spoke about the important investment this Government have made in young people, our support for restart and the emergence of the global economy, which is creating challenges for everybody.
The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans)—and I thought this was a very important matter—raised the issue of water prices, but also his deep frustration about the impact of loss of water. I have seen that in my own constituency, and that was welcome to hear.
There was an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), who spoke about the business support in this area, the protection of jobs and the fact that there had been hardship help with council tax bills. He said that we need high skills and to see the impact of T-levels, and this Government are making that happen.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) spoke about Shaun and the mental health impact of the never-ending spiral of poverty, which was absolutely harrowing to hear. Our in-work progression focus will absolutely help people such as Shaun. Our work coaches transform the lives of people like Shaun every day, and we stand ready to help.
The hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) shared her shopping habits, which I very much enjoyed. It was very reassuring to hear that she really understood the value of the DWP to her community.

Virginia Crosbie: This debate is all about jobs. Does the Minister agree that the reopening of the Amlwch jobcentre will ensure that my constituents across Ynys Môn get access to hundreds of new jobs?

Mims Davies: I thank my hon. Friend, and she gives me the opportunity to speak about our unwavering support for the most vulnerable people in our society. Week in and week out, the doors of our jobcentres have remained open for the most vulnerable, but that particular jobcentre has been very difficult to get open safely. I am delighted it is opening imminently, and I know what an impact it has in her community and how much work she does to support that community.
To turn to the thoughtful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), she spoke about the hiring opportunities, the opportunities of rising wages and of course the challenges of raising a family, which we all know.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) rightly raised the cost of broadband. I am happy to say that at the DWP we have a social tariff available. We want to support people on low incomes who need specific help, and we have specific support through the benefits system and the flexible support fund. She should be reassured by that.
There is so much more I would like to say. There was the passionate contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). There was the speech from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who should please look at the strategy in the disability Green Paper and have a look at the impact of auto-enrolment, which I think will reassure her.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned the value of UC and how it had supported many people, and he asked about our plan. We have had a plan for jobs since last July, and I will go on to make further comments shortly.
We in this House engage weekly in our surgeries with constituents who are in times of need, and nobody could have foreseen how difficult the last 18 months or so were going to be for our society because of a global pandemic. Members have raised various challenges faced by their constituents in different sectors, and they are important matters, but it must be noted that many constituents on UC are working, which is exactly why we have a taper rate to support people. There is no cliff edge on UC—if you work hard, UC helps you to keep more of your money.
Through this pandemic the Government have recognised that people needed significant additional support and have stepped in to help pay the wages of millions of workers, investing over £400 billion in an unprecedented package of support, protecting jobs and safeguarding livelihoods, as we have heard throughout this afternoon. Our plan for jobs, which I have been delivering on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions, is wide-ranging. The package includes kickstart, restart, doubling the number of our work coaches, job entry targeted support, job finding support, sector-based work academy programmes, our enhanced youth offer and new DWP youth hubs, and a significant expansion of our jobcentre network, allowing us to assist our claimants, some for the first time in their lives, with not only benefit support and advice but opportunities to progress or transition to a different sector and harness their skills in a new way.

Richard Holden: Does the Minister agree that the best way to help people, especially those changing jobs, is to do everything we can through jobcentres? I thank the Consett, Stanley and Crook jobcentres for attending my recent “jobs, jobs, jobs” fair at Derwentside College in North West Durham, which the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), also kindly came along to. Does the Minister also agree that it is incumbent on all Members to do everything they can to help all their constituents get into new jobs given the record numbers of vacancies across the country?

Mims Davies: Absolutely: jobs, jobs, jobs is the right message, but very little of that has been heard in the Chamber this afternoon from those on the Opposition Benches. On jobs fairs, it is vital that people come through our doors and see what is out there, because it is time once again to be, as this Government are being, forward-thinking, pragmatic and responsible as we push to build back better. The reality is that it is unsustainable to carry on spending the amount that we have been on welfare measures during this pandemic without ongoing increases in public expenditure, which Opposition Members have complained about. Inevitably, that would also affect working people’s taxes—which is what the debate is about.
The extra provision this Government have provided during the pandemic was temporary, to deal with the pandemic head on. Now that public health restrictions have been relaxed, it is right that these temporary support measures come to an end. Of course we also have our successful vaccine roll-out, and pleasingly—we must  remember this—we are no longer in the same situation we were in at the turn of the year, and nor is our labour market. We have been able to reopen society, and our economy is recovering strongly. Growth is forecast by the OECD to be 7.2% this year, reflecting the bounce back we are already seeing right across the UK. So it is a time to be bold and empower people to harness their opportunities and help them progress on to their next stage—to give people both the hope and the skills and training they need to thrive in this changing economy.

Kirsty Blackman: What would the Minister say to the working parent who is already trying to juggle hours around childcare and who cannot simply pick up another few hours of work a week? How are they going to make up this shortfall?

Mims Davies: I would say, “Talk to your work coach.” We heard from two hon. Members from Liverpool today. I was in the Toxteth jobcentre meeting the first people taking the digital online level 3 programme, which people can earn a lot more money by taking part in. There are so many opportunities in jobcentres. I know that the hon. Lady has not been to her jobcentre recently, because I checked. Please do go and visit.

Kirsty Blackman: rose—

Mims Davies: I will make some progress, because I think it is important to talk about the 1 million vacancies that we have in our economy. We have jobs in growing and emerging sectors; we have green jobs, we have tech roles, and they can all be accessed through our jobcentres.
I am determined to help those with the biggest barriers to move closer to the labour market, to ensure that, as the hon. Lady says, people progress into work and see the reward for their efforts, and to help people increase their hours or get into work for the first time, like—I must correct the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke)—the more than 69,000 young people who are now in kickstart roles, on that important first rung of the career ladder.
My message today to everyone in the Chamber and everyone looking in is: if you want to progress in this jobs market, whoever you are, wherever you are—at any age or any stage—we are here for you. We will get behind you. We have dedicated work coaches, and we have boosted them by 13,500 as part of our plan for jobs. We will give you tailored support and we will help you progress. We will not leave you behind.
We are directly investing in our young people most at risk of long-term unemployment with the £2 billion kickstart scheme, a life-changing scheme of a six-month work placement—a springboard into a future career. With over 188,000—I got it right this time—kickstart roles, young people must turn to their work coaches to hear about these amazing opportunities.
Meanwhile, I must let the House know that we have a new youth hub across every Jobcentre Plus district throughout England, Scotland and Wales. By Christmas, we will have 150 new youth hubs open. These are valuable new partnerships—interventions for direct life chances—with local councils, football clubs, charities such as the Prince’s Trust, and local training providers.
We are also seeing lives changed by our job entry targeted support programme, which is known as JETS, with over 25,000 people starting new jobs since our plan for jobs was launched. That is not forgetting our £2.9 billion restart scheme, which will, crucially, help those who are leaving furlough. We have also refreshed our “50 PLUS: Choices” offer, and we have stronger support for those who need any extra skills through our lifetime skills guarantee.
I am passionate—I hope the House has noticed it this evening—about getting people into jobs, but also about progressing people when they are in work. This Government’s longer-term ambition remains to build an economy that ensures that everyone, no matter what their background, has the opportunities to enter work and progress out of low pay.
We are absolutely taking action. The in-work progression commission was launched in March 2020 by the DWP. We will respond shortly to its report, but it is all about getting that understanding about the barriers that people in low pay face and, crucially, as we talked about this afternoon, ensuring that work remains the best route out of poverty.
Our plan for jobs programme is also helping claimants to gain the skills they need to progress in work. Our sector-based work academy programmes—SWAPs—are helping people get new skills to retrain and pivot into growing sectors, from viticulture to construction, infrastructure and social care. Haulage has been mentioned this afternoon; we have a programme in that, too. We also have DWP Train and Progress, which provides the ability to access the Department for Education skills bootcamps in growing sectors. With over a million—

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 300.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put forthwith (Standing No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
Question agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order Np. 31(2)).
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the £400 billion package of support the Government has put in place to protect jobs, incomes and livelihoods throughout this covid-19 pandemic, including a temporary cut to VAT, generous cash grants for businesses, a business rates holiday, and the furlough scheme which protected 11 million people at its peak; notes the launching of the Plan For Jobs to help people back into work and gain the right skills to succeed in the jobs of tomorrow through schemes such as Kickstart for young people, Restart for the long-term unemployed, the Lifetime Skills Guarantee and additional funding for apprenticeships, traineeships and work coaches; further notes the measures taken by the Government to keep costs down for working people, such as introducing and increasing the National Living Wage in 2016 so that a full-time worker is £4,000 a year better off than before, doubling personal tax thresholds giving individuals an extra £1,200 per year, protecting local taxpayers from excessive council tax increases, introducing an energy price cap which protects 15 million households by around £100 a year, and freezing fuel duty for 11 consecutive years which has saved drivers £1,600 compared to 2010; and believes that this plan is working, as evidenced by unemployment forecast to be 2 million lower than previously expected, job vacancies at record highs, household incomes protected, consumer confidence back to pre-covid-19 pandemic levels, and GDP recovering rapidly, with the IMF forecasting the UK to have the highest growth in the G7 this year.

Business without Debate

Financial Assistance

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Order, 13 September, and Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under Section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, compensation to digital technology product vendors in respect of a proportion of the costs of providing digital technology product to SMEs as part of the Help to Grow Digital programme up to a limit of £296 million over three years.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Question agreed to.

Kirsty Blackman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Will Members leaving the Chamber please show a little bit of courtesy to others by doing so quietly?

Kirsty Blackman: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice because the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), has just left the Chamber.
The hon. Member said that she had checked and that I had not visited my local jobcentre in recent times. In fact, my local jobcentre was closed from the start of the pandemic until 26 April this year, when it was only allowing entry to people who had been requested to attend. I was contacted by the jobcentre recently, we had a “back and forth”, and I asked if I could visit. The jobcentre refused me that opportunity, because it is only doing virtual tours at the moment. I would appreciate it if the hon. Member could confirm that I have not had an opportunity to visit my local jobcentre, but I will be taking part in a virtual tour and speaking to the manager on Monday.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point of order. However, she will appreciate that it is not a point of order for the Chair, but a continuation of the previous debate. I understand why she wants to set the record straight, and I am sure that the Minister will hear what she said in due course and will appreciate her contribution.

Cawston Park Hospital: Norfolk Safeguarding Adults Board Review

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

Jerome Mayhew: We are here this evening because of Joanna, Jon and Ben. Joanna had autism and was epileptic, Jon was autistic too, and Ben had Down’s syndrome. Their learning disabilities led to mental health difficulties, and they were consequently sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 and sent to the private Jeesal Cawston Park Hospital in my constituency. It is an assessment and treatment unit, and assessment and treatment is exactly what was meant to happen to these people: they were meant to be assessed and then treated, the objective being their discharge back into community care. But that did not happen.
Joanna was kept in the hospital for 11 months before she died in April 2018. Jon was kept in the hospital for 24 months before he died in October 2019. Ben was kept in the hospital for 17 months before he, too, died, in July 2020. All of them were in their early 30s, and all of them suffered from neglect. They were neglected through uncontrolled weight gain, through a lack of meaningful physical or mental activities, and through a lack of effective treatment through continuous positive airway pressure—CPAP—machines, which help people to sleep at night. The staff neglected the raising of concerns by members of their families; and, worst of all, they neglected even to attempt to resuscitate them when resuscitation was desperately needed.
Joanna was found unresponsive in her bed. A nurse and five carers—all of them trained—attended, but not a single one attempted resuscitation. Joanna died. Jon had swallowed a piece of a plastic cup. He told staff:
“I cannot breathe. I am dying.”
The CCTV footage proves that the staff just stood there for several minutes without attempting resuscitation. He died.
The day before Ben died, it was obvious that he was extremely unwell. He had blue lips and blue nails because of a lack of saturated oxygen in his blood. His mother was there on a visit and she raised the alarm. She demanded that an ambulance be called, but the hospital refused. Even later that day when Ben’s oxygen saturation levels were measured and found to be 35%, no ambulance was called. He died. The hospital neglected the families, and neglected to use their expertise and experience.
The families describe indifferent, harmful hospital practices, excessive use of restraint and seclusion by unqualified staff, and overmedication. A mother has contacted me in the past week to describe her child’s matted hair, her uncut fingernails and toenails, and the soiled clothing piled in a corner of the room. By chance, CCTV footage reviewed after Ben’s death uncovered a casual physical assault on him by a carer on the day he died. He was pulled down by his arms and then slapped around the head. What have we not seen?
This was supposed to be a specialist assessment and treatment unit, yet records were not even kept by the hospital for prolonged periods. Joanna was at the hospital for 11 months, but there are no records for 179 days of those 11 months. Ben was there for 17 months, but for an amazing 450 days during that 17-month period, no  records were kept. So what assessment was undertaken? What treatment was given? My first request of the Minister is this: we need to acknowledge the scale of this scandal and its impact on real people, the most vulnerable in our society. We also need to acknowledge that we should all be ashamed.
This is not unique. We have heard this before. It sounds familiar, and that is because exactly the same thing happened at Winterbourne View Hospital back in 2012. We have had the report. This was another assessment and treatment unit where people with learning disabilities or autism were abused. The 2012 report criticised the development of assessment and treatment units, saying that they were
“not part of current policy, and certainly not recommended practice…Containment rather than personalised care and support has too easily become the pattern in these institutions.”
Of course lessons were learned. Department of Health reports described the abuse of people at Winterbourne View Hospital as “horrifying”. A Department of Health programme of action was agreed, and I have it with me today. Following the statement:
“We the undersigned commit to a programme for change”,
the very first undertaking is that
“Health and Care Commissioners will review all current hospital placements and support everyone inappropriately placed in hospital to move to community-based support as quickly as possible and no later than 1 June 2014.”
That did not happen. Today, in 2021, more than 2,000 patients are still contained in assessment and treatment units. I use the word advisedly: they are “contained”.
This is my second request to the Minister. Will she, on behalf of the Government, recommit this evening to the needed closure of all assessment and treatment units? That is what the coalition Government committed to doing in 2012, but by 2014 it had still not been done. We need to do it now. Why do we need to do it? There is a monumental conflict of interest for these private hospitals. Beyond being merely inhumane, there is a huge commercial incentive to maintain residency, because each of these patients comes with a fat cheque of £26,000 per month.
We can see where the conflict lies and why one family member, when they went to Cawston Park Hospital, was handed a piece of paper on which was written the address of a firm of solicitors. Her statement said:
“Once people are in Cawston Park Hospital you can’t get them out.”
Patients did not leave Cawston Park Hospital, and the problem is structural. If a hospital is paid £26,000 a month to assess and treat a patient, is it surprising that the hospital does not release them?
We have had another review of this latest scandal, and the Norfolk Safeguarding Adults Board’s review of Cawston Park Hospital is excellent. I have read it. It is 105 pages long and there are 13 recommendations. I recommend it wholeheartedly to the Minister, and the Government should apply all the recommendations.
The report has been followed by the usual handwringing responses from the agencies. Action plans have been created and there have been multidisciplinary stakeholder reviews. Profound apologies have been given, and I believe they are profound apologies. Lessons have been learned, but in my submission they have not really been  learned, because without a profound culture change in residential care, we will be back here again. We all know it and the public know it.

James Wild: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate on the tragic events in Norfolk and for the powerful case he is making.
One of the most alarming elements of this very shocking report is the final hours of Ben, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Ben’s mum, Gina, said:
“If you ill-treat an animal, you get put in prison. But people ill-treated my son and they’re still free.”
That is completely unacceptable, and the police and the authorities should look again at all the leads and all the evidence to hold those people to account.

Jerome Mayhew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that management teams and owners should personally fear prison as a response to a culture failure. If a culture of neglect is tolerated by their acts or, more likely, by their omissions, there needs to be personal liability. People need to fear prison, because there will be no change without individuals being held personally to account for allowing this culture of indifference. I profoundly hope that the most rigorous investigations are undertaken by the police and the Care Quality Commission, with a focus on individual prosecutions if justified by the evidence. There have been no prosecutions to date.
More generally, and widening the conversation away from the individual, directors need to be held to account if we are to restore public trust in the system. The Law Commission is aware of this, and it is undertaking a consultation on the issue of corporate criminal liability. It is consulting on how we can make improvements primarily, in the first instance, in economic crime, but how much more important is it to get equity where the victims are the most vulnerable in society, people in care, people who cannot argue their own case because of their age, because of illness or because of their condition?
The current rules on the definition of a controlling mind are often too narrow for individual prosecutions to succeed. The legislation has been on the statute book since about 2007, and there have been hardly any successful prosecutions because of that narrow definition. This needs to be changed.
I am meeting the Law Commission in October, along with the authors of the Safeguarding Adults Board review, to press the case for a widening of the definition to make the people who run such hospitals fear personal prosecution, because that is how we will change the culture.
That leads me to my third request of the Minister. If she really wants to prevent a repeat, will her Department commit to making a submission to the Law Commission consultation on criminal corporate liability so that we strengthen the personal responsibility for providers of residential care? The Chinese general Sun Tzu, who is very famous now, said “Kill one, terrify 1,000”, and he was right. The problem is that families of patients are concerned; they are the ones who are fearful and have no confidence in the current system. They fear the consequences and we need to change that; it should be the directors of care businesses. If they allow abuse and neglect, they should be fearful—they should pay with the fear of a prison sentence. Only then will we get change.

Gillian Keegan: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) for securing this debate on this deeply disturbing, upsetting and important topic, and for his continued work on exposing the failings at Cawston Park.
I would like to begin by expressing my sympathy for the families, friends and loved ones of Joanna, “Jon”, as he is referred to in reporting, and Ben. These are three people whose lives were cut short tragically and needlessly. The accounts of their experiences at Cawston Park Hospital, a place that should have been there to care for and support them, are heartbreaking. I can only imagine how distressing it would have been for their families and loved ones to read about the events leading up to their deaths. I send the families of Ben, Jon and Joanna my deep condolences, and I would like to invite them to meet me so that I can understand their experiences directly—I would be happy for my hon. Friend to join me in those meetings.
I would also like to thank those who have shared their experiences of the services and support at Cawston Park, and the Norfolk Safeguarding Adults Board for under-taking the review and preparing the final report. That is essential for shining a light on what has happened. I know that my officials are in dialogue with the board to identify how recommendations can be progressed as impactfully and as quickly as possible. I believe they met today.
The appalling care and practice uncovered at Cawston Park is completely unacceptable. Every person with a learning disability, and every autistic person who needs it, must receive safe and high-quality care, and they must be treated with dignity and respect. Both my hon. Friend and I have dearly loved family members who have Down’s syndrome and know many people with autism, and we are horrified to think that vulnerable people who put such trust in others for support would be treated in such an appalling way.
I recognise and acknowledge the frustration and strength of feeling about the issues raised today. The Department is working with the NHS, local government and the Care Quality Commission to ensure that we identify unacceptable care with urgency and take robust action immediately. I can confirm that Cawston Park closed in May, following action taken by the CQC, and all of the people who were in-patients at Cawston Park have moved either to a supported community setting or to an alternative hospital setting, where immediate discharge was not possible.
I appreciate that everyone listening will want assurance that anyone with a learning disability and any autistic person in one of those hospitals—any one of the 2,000 people he mentioned—is safe. NHS England’s reviews of each individual person’s care arrangements will ensure that there is a clear care plan in place with a clear path to discharge. Such treatment where there were no clear paths to discharge must not happen again.
More broadly, I welcome this opportunity to set out the work that is under way to eliminate poor-quality in-patient settings and properly invest in the community alternatives that people with a learning disability and people with autism deserve.
As the regulator for mental health hospitals, the CQC has a central role in identifying any cases of poor in- patient care and taking immediate action. The Department  fully endorses the increased scrutiny by the CQC and its improved inspection approach, which includes spending more time with patients and their families to identify settings that are at risk of developing a closed culture. In particular, the CQC takes more account of what families have to say. The enhanced processes have revealed cases in which quality falls below the standards we expect. Where that is the case, robust regulatory action is being taken. We must not tolerate poor care and treatment, and any provider that cannot meet standards should be tackled immediately, including through closures.
In the report, families describe the excessive use of restraint and seclusion by unqualified staff. Any kind of restrictive practice or restraint should only ever be used as a last resort. The Department is taking action to increase the transparency and reporting of the use of restrictive practices, in response to the recommendations made by the CQC in its review of the use of restraint, seclusion and segregation. Increased transparency is a central aim of the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 statutory guidance, on which we have recently consulted. Work is now under way to commence the Act from November 2021.
As part our longer-term plans to limit the unnecessary detention of people with a learning disability and autistic people, we are seeking to implement once-in-a-generation reforms to the Mental Health Act. Under our proposed reforms, we will limit the scope to detain people with a learning disability or autism for treatment if there is no diagnosed mental health cause for distressed behaviour. To support that, the proposed reforms will create new duties for commissioners to ensure an adequate supply of community services and that every local area understands and monitors the risk of crisis at an individual level. For those who continue to require in-patient care, we are clear that this should be for the shortest time possible, as close to home as possible and the least restrictive possible.
Alongside the longer-term plans to improve in-patient care and support, the situations outlined in the review of Cawston Park highlight the need for urgent action in quicker time. That will require cross-system, cross-Government action in a number of priority areas that have historically presented blockages to progress. The Government are taking action specifically to target such blockages, ranging from identifying best practice models in the community to ensuring that the right workforce with the right training is in place.
In closing, I thank Members for their contributions on this important topic and their commitment to ensuring that people with a learning disability and autistic people receive the high-quality care and support that they deserve. The CQC’s robust inspections are helping us to identify and prevent cases of unacceptable care, such as that of Cawston Park. It is our priority—and my personal priority—to reduce reliance on in-patient care. I have set out today the range of work that is under way not only to reduce in-patient numbers but to drive real change in the care that is available to people with learning disabilities and autistic people, to enable them to live fulfilling lives in the community, as we all want. All our actions will be shaped by the Norfolk Safeguarding Adults Board review report, to ensure that the experiences of Ben, Jon and Joanna are not repeated.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.